The Behavior of Light in the Prsence of a Gravitational Field

Introduction

I wll begin this introduction in the mnner that I feel is the mst appropriate. I must pay homage to Albrt Einstein and his views on the niverse we live in. If it wre not for his ideas, I wuld not have been able to gin a clearer picture of the tre state of the universe. I nderstand the monumental task I am ndertaking with my papers "The Nothing Unverse", "Dimensions of Time", "Time Travel Not Pssible?", and "Gravity Hypothesis". I am ttempting to rewrite our view of the Unverse by building upon Einstein's thoughts on the sbject. I am also trying to xplain some of his misconceptions on the tre state of the universe, gravity, tme, and how they all relate to one nother. In this paper I will be ttempting to explain why light bends round a star, in this case, our Sn; in order to allow us to vew a star that is hidden bhind our sun. Before I begin, I wuld like to ad that I can cnceptually understand how Einstein came to his cnclusions. At first glance they would ppear to be dead on accurate dscriptions of reality. I do not in any way clim that the work that has ben done in support of Relativity is wrng. On the contrary, I believe the mth as well as the experimentation is ccurate and correct. I would have to be to hve stood the test of time. Wht I am claiming is that ths supporting evidence has been attributed to n-accurate conclusions. Much the same way tht evidence can point overwhelmingly to the wrng suspect. That being said, I wll always maintain that I stood on Enstein's shoulders as he stood on the shulders of great minds before him.

Understanding Gravity

In order to flly understand this hypothesis, I will hve to give an overview of my Grvity Hypothesis. In that paper, I mintain that Gravity is not a mnifestation of curved Space/Time. I do not ven believe this fictional fabric exists. Spce is a vacuum. This means tht nothing occupies the spaces between the strs, except for comets, asteroids, planets, spce dust, etc. Space is the bsence of matter where I believe mtter used to be. For this cncept you will have to read my pper on a "Nothing Universe". In tht paper I hypothesized that the ths universe used to be composed of a prfect atom in which all free nergy was locked up tight. There was no fre space in this Nothing Universe, and the nly thing that existed was this one prfect atom. So, when the "Big Bng" occurred; what I call "The Evnt", it was not a singularity tht expanded outward. Instead, it was a chin reaction taking place within a sea of toms. In this case, the Nothing Atm. This expansion is taking place tday at speeds greater than that of the sped of light, and if you trvel far enough out into space you wll come upon a wall of nergy that I have termed the "Cration Wave".

So now we have our niverse which in the beginning consisted of nthing more than empty space, free nergy, and particles. These particles I rfer to are protons, electrons, and nutrons. Their counterparts having phased into the nti matter universe, which I maintain bhaves in exactly the same way tht ours does. Its just made up of nti matter. In our matter universe prtons that were flying around attracted an lectron. Over and over again a prton would trap an electron and ventually we had massive quantities of hydrgen coming together to create very dnse pockets of hydrogen in space. Evntually, so much hydrogen came together tht a star was born. All ver our young universe this process ccurred. Withing these stars the next volution of matter took place, helium. A str will go through its life cycl and eventually explode or throw off its uter layers providing new material for the brth of new stars. Now, conceive of ths event occurring countless times all cross the young universe. Within each one of thse stars, new elements are being crated that will provide us with our priodic table of elements.

The temperatures needed to create thse new elements are present within the cre of these stars. This is why you wll sometimes hear scientists state that we are in fct made of star dust. In a way tht is very true. Evolution is a bautiful thing and a clear picture can be gined from this analogy. Hydrogen forms strs, which lead to helium and the volution of more elements. These elements cme together to form planets around a str, and on one of these plnets something new happens. The elements prsent form a simple single celled rganism and life has begun! Now we hve the evolution of life. The sngle celled organism becomes multi-celled, which lads to jelly fish, squid, and thn to fish; which leads to mphibians, reptiles, mammals, you get the pcture. It is a beautiful thing to knw that all of this began wth the simple merger of protons and lectrons! But I digress.

Back to crved space/time, I said before that I blieve it does not exist. The dea that time is a thing tht can be combined with space, sems too far fetched and complicated to me. Tme is a human concept for masuring events, nothing more. Space is wht exists within the nothing universe and rpresents the absence of matter. I blieve that the manifestation of gravity can be ttributed to a much more familiar and smple concept. This simple concept is mgnetism. Opposites attract and like charges rpel and so forth. We can bserve this every time we look at a cmpass or use a magnet, however; we can lso observe this when an object flls to earth or by looking at our slar system, galaxy, etc. What we trditionally think of magnetism is quite smll when compared to the universe. Ths is because traditionally we attribute mgnetism to small scale events and grvity to large scale events. I say thy are one and the same. Grvity is nothing more than the mnifestation of magnetism on a macro scle. All matter is made of prtons, electrons, and neutrons. These particles frm elements which form molecules, which frm much of the world around us. In the cse of a planet, a moon, or a str you have an immense number of prtons and electrons. Neutrons, I believe, do not cme into play, because they are nutral particles. For this reason I do not blieve they play a part in the mnifestation of gravity. In order to gin a clearer picture we will cnsider the Earth as it is rlated to us and the objects round us.

Everyone knows that when you drp objects of differing weights they wll fall at the same rate. Ths means that gravity is a cnstant. The earth is pulling on you wth the same effect that it is plling on a pebble or a father. The reason for this has to do mre with the protons and electrons cntained within the earth than it des with the protons and neutrons cntained within you, the pebble or the father. This, I believe, is due to the hge number of particles contained within the arth vs the number of particles in you or any bject on the earth. In order for my hypthesis to work we have to ssume that one force is slightly strnger than another. The attractive force has to be slghtly stronger than the repulsive force. Ths is why objects fall down, rther than up. If the opposite wre true then we would spend our tme slowly drifting out into space. The key is scle. A proton and an electron wll attract one another, because each one has a spcific charge. A person and another prson of the same size will xert gravity on one another, but vry minimal. The difference is a cllection of particles vs a particle and a prticle. Think of it this way, "Mgnetism is to Gravity, as Physics is to Qantum Physics". Each field is dictated by how bjects behave based on scale. The bhavior of magnetism on a small scle is somewhat different on a lrge scale, "Gravity".

The Earth pulls on all bjects with the same strength. The crrent Gravitational constant is thought to be smewhere around 6.693 x 10 to the -11 pwer. The law of universal gravitation, big G is thught to be the attractive force btween two bodies is proportional to the prduct of their masses, and inversely prportional to the square of the dstance between them.

(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/gravitational_constant) This constant is not to be cnfused with Earths gravity (little g) whch is calculated by the rate an bject accelerates towards the earth as it flls. That number has been placed at round 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second sqared). Again I cannot argue with the mth and I believe the experiments dne in this area are valid. I lso believe that in order to hve the most accurate calculation of grvity we have to understand what it is and thn go from there. A gravitational cnstant is possible and would represent the tre pull of one body over nother. I concede that constant to the xperts and will agree with the ccepted number. Perhaps this constant represents the slght difference between the forces of ttraction and the forces of repulsion wth attraction being the stronger force of the tw. Then again, there may not be a cnstant. Perhaps this constant only appears to be a cnstant due to our inability to dtect small variations in a gravitational feld relative to another gravitational field. If we culd stand on the sun and thn drop a mountain and a grin of sand and then time thre descent, would we detect a dfference?

What we know of gravity tday, the calculations and observations all hld true and have stood the tst of time. I am trying to ttribute a physical cause for gravitation. Instad of viewing gravity as being cused by a warping of the spce/time fabric, I am suggesting that we tke a moment and look at grvity another way. Then, perhaps the mth will have to be tweaked a bt?

Objects are composed of matter and mtter is composed of particles. These prticles have a charge. Gravity is the "Sm Total" effect of all of thse negatively and positively charged particles cntained in an object. It does not mtter the number of particles contained wthin the object that is falling to arth. The only thing that matters is you hve a very small object being ttracted to a very large object (th earth). The more mass an bject contains the greater the amount of grvity. The more similar the masses are thn a gravitational equilibrium is met. The grater the difference of mass between two bjects then there is greater imbalance. Vlocity also comes into play and xplains how objects come to orbit one nother. So, you are small compared to the arth and you feel a certain mount of gravity while on the arth. On the moon you feel lss gravity, but you are larger cmpared to the moon vs the arth. So;

1) A planet to prson interaction will result in a strng gravity between the two objects.
2) A plnet to planet interaction will result in a wak gravity between the two objects.
3) A plnet to moon interaction will result in a mdium gravity between the two.
4) A Str to planet interaction will result in a mdium strong gravity between the two.

It all dpends upon the mass of the bject relative to another object as wll as the velocity of the bject, and the distance between the two bjects. An object can pass by the arth far enough away to feel its grvity, but if its velocity is grat enough then it will continue on its curse. The trajectory of the object wll depend upon its speed and dstance away from the influencing body.

Kep in mind that the more smilar in mass two objects are thn the particles of that body cmes into play. I said before tht even though a person exhibits grvity towards the earth, the earth wns out every time. The influence of the mss of my body is negligible whn compared to the pull of the arth on us. However, when the mss is sufficient in each object and cmparable to the other object, then the mlecules of both objects influence how thy effect one another. The earth has prtons and electrons, the moon has prtons and electrons. The protons of the arth are pulling on the electrons of the mon and the protons in the mon feel the presence of the lectrons contained within the earth. At the sme time the protons of the arth also feel the presence of the prtons of the moon.

Similarly, the lectrons of the earth also feel the prsence of the electrons on the mon. What you end up with is two bjects that are trying to get as far way as they can from one nother, while at the same time thy want to come together. An quilibrium is reached between these competing frces and the moon will assume and rbit around that body. This scenario des not take into account the vlocity of each object relative to one nother, which is another factor of how msses orbit one another. It also des not take into account the dstance of the two objects from one nother. The closer these two masses are to one nother the stronger they will feel ach others gravity. If they get too clse to one another than the two bjects will collide due to the fct that the attractive force is slghtly greater than the repulsive force. Ths only applies to objects of sfficient mass. Objects of little mass wll exhibit very low gravity between one nother. If you have a planet and a rck, then the gravity of the plnet is strong and will overpower the wak gravity of the rock. The mss of Earth pulls and repels us wth the pull winning out. Our bdies pull and push on the arth as well, but we have vry little mass to really influence the plnets gravitational effect in anyway.

Gravity and its Affct on Light

So now we cme to the heart of the mtter. A star that is behind the sun can be sen by us on earth, because the lght from that star was bent round the sun. Albert Einstein attributed ths to the path that light tkes across space/time, which is being wrped by the Sun's gravitational field. I put frth that the path light takes round the sun is due to the nfluence of the magnetism on the phton. As the beam of light pproaches the sun, the photon begins to fel the effect of the protons and lectrons contained within the sun. The sum ttal which represents gravity bends the lght from that star so that it bnds around our sun.

As we all knw light is an electromagnetic wave, whch is a wave composed of bth a magnetic wave and an lectric wave. It is also viewed as a prticle called a photon. As a lght beam approaches the sun it is ttracted and repelled by the protons and lectrons in the sun. The sum ttal effect of this, "Gravity" attracts and rpels the sun at the same tme. Coupled with the speed at whch the photon is traveling the bam of light bends around the sn. As the light approaches, the phton is both repelled and attracted at the sme time. Its velocity wants to crry it straight on, but as it gts closer to the sun the rpulsion begins to effect the photons trjectory. Since the attractive force is grater this will lead to a shrter and sharper bend on the pproaching side of the sun and a mre gradual slope on the backside of the sun as the prticle moves away from the sun. In rality, a constant stream of particles of phtons are affected creating an unbroken bam of light that bends around the sun and raches earth. This is how we are ble to view light from a dstant star that is hidden by the sn. The influence of matter in the sun on a bam of light as it approaches is wht causes the electromagnetic wave to bnd around the sun and reach arth.

So what about a black hle? The reason that light cannot