QUESTION- Speed of light and gravitational fields.

Hi there.

Just a quick question on the speed of light in gravitational fields.

I was thinking (a dangerous past time i can assure you)...about our current notion that the speed of light is constant, and the fact that our current model for the age/size of the universe is based on this concept.

But now science aknowledges that light is effected by gravitational fields.

So this got me thinking that, if light "slows down", when passing through a G-field (effecting the redshift also), then ALL our measurements of interstella/galactic and ESPECIALLY extragalactic systems are way off.

And how would we ever test this theory from "down here" when we are looking out of our own Gravity bubble, and the speed of light may ONLY travel at 186000 miles per second in OUR Solar system. Every where else in the universe in may be jerking around like a 'learner driver' stuck in first gear, speeding up and slowing down at every bump and curve the universe has to offer.

So thats my thinking.... and the questions i would like the answers to are :

1. They measured the speed of light, but were variables such as OUR G-field taken into account, and if so..WHY did they assume the same across the entire cosmos?

2. Are there alternate theories/views and/or ideas that allow this to happen, (variable light speeds in a variable universe? Or is it a case of scientific dogma, rather than bashing a square brick through a round hole, are they just facing their backs to the problem and saying "its in the hole already".

3. Or have my questions here totally "over exposed" my "missing the point" about something.

I eagerly await replies

Cheers.
AoN

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

Your not the only one thinking this. Just the other day I posted about this, see...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
So this got me thinking that, if light "slows down", when passing through a G-field (effecting the redshift also), then ALL our measurements of interstella/galactic and ESPECIALLY extragalactic systems are way off.

They took it into account. And it's actually bent as well. Gravity in space can cause some spectacular "gravitational lenses" that allow us to see much farther than we normally could.
casswww.ucsd.edu...

And how would we ever test this theory from "down here" when we are looking out of our own Gravity bubble, and the speed of light may ONLY travel at 186000 miles per second in OUR Solar system. Every where else in the universe in may be jerking around like a 'learner driver' stuck in first gear, speeding up and slowing down at every bump and curve the universe has to offer.

Here's an article on how they measure gravity and light and speed :
www.cbc.ca...

Basically, they wait for certain cosmic events (like eclipses) where you have a body that's a known distance away (they can check it with bounced lasers and radio waves and by several other measures) and then produce theories saying "if this is true then we should see this effect..." If the effect happens as predicted, the theory is tested again to see if it was a fluke or if this is a real event.

1. They measured the speed of light, but were variables such as OUR G-field taken into account, and if so..WHY did they assume the same across the entire cosmos?

Because the cosmos is mostly space. If it was mostly planetary material and stars, we'd have the dickens of a time measuring anything.

2. Are there alternate theories/views and/or ideas that allow this to happen, (variable light speeds in a variable universe?

Yes, and in fact there are a number of situations where changes in the speed of light is accounted for in this manner. Wikipedia gives kind of an overview of them, including the theoretical models.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or is it a case of scientific dogma, rather than bashing a square brick through a round hole, are they just facing their backs to the problem and saying "its in the hole already".

A case of "we can't possibly teach you EVERYthing we know so we teach you the basic models and hope you will research when you need details." Can you imagine a class of third graders sitting through that stuff on variable light speeds and Dirac's work?

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
But now science aknowledges that light is effected by gravitational fields.

So this got me thinking that, if light "slows down", when passing through a G-field (effecting the redshift also), then ALL our measurements of interstella/galactic and ESPECIALLY extragalactic systems are way off.

It is way off, While observations have shown the bending of light, it's not to the degree they are claiming. Redshift data is being interpreted incorrectly, please see my thread. You can find out more about red shift at some of the links there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

When you look at the facts and history surrounded some of these assumptions they're clinging too, you'll see how little of what they say about the universe is based on fact.

Gravitational Lensing misused again
Gravitational lensing used as an excuse again
Gravitational lensing or birth of a theory?
Gravitaional lensing or death of a theory?

We have to get away from the concept of the universe being mostly space. It is not a complete vacuum, it's been estimated to be 99.999% plasma. Huge currents of charged particles have been found. Gravity is not the king. It's so obvious it's a little sad.

Light being an electromagnetic wave, the energy in these waves are connected with the electrical and magnetic fields. The energy in these currents is immense, Looking in terms of this it may not be gravity bending light at all. (just a personal thought)
The source of particle acceleration in space plasma

It appears lights speed may be effected by electrical fields.

To the OP, because Byrd made my head explode.

I got into an interesting conversation with my dad the other night. We ended up browsing the Hubble photo gallery, where theres pictures of galaxies that are taken in a fraction of a degree field. I'm talking hundreds of galaxies. We were searching for galaxies that have a clockwise spiral. Most are counter for some reason. Like we are looking down onto a universal plane, such as our galactic plane.

We started talking about the ages of these galaxies and how they probably look now. Since we base our distances on light, we started talking about dimensions. The speed of light is our boundary to the next dimension, which is where the new sentance in my signature came from.

But we have a pretty good idea that the speed of light is constant. Of course, its a constant in a vacuum ON EARTH, with our gravity's influence.

Thanks in advance for preventing my insomnia.

squiz is correct but the problem runs even deeper I'm afraid. Unfortunately most of the anomalous data, which refutes our current models is summarily rejected by the physics mafia that control the dissemination of ideas in our journals and controls the money that is funneled into research. I suppose it's human nature, but it is virtually axiomatic that any new idea is viciously and sometimes violently suppressed by the establishment. It's been that way for thousands of years.

The fact is, there is substantial evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum, even outside of a large gravitational field has been slowing down. Red shift theory is a joke as Halton Arp has so eloquently proven. Galaxy's and nearby quasars have different red shifts even though they are about the same distance from us. Even worse the spatial distribution of red shifted quasars is not isotropic if you believe red shift theory. The distribution clusters and is laughably dependent on the position of the earth. Yet they still cling to the theory because so many careers are at stake.

As for GR, it has issues. It is not consistent with quantum mechanics because the stress-energy tensor of the quantum vacuum is so large we should all be sitting in a black hole. There was also a recent european experiment that demonstrated a larger coupling between magnetic fields and gravity than the very weak coupling predicted by GR. There are also several competing theories that predict all the same gravitational lensing and perihelion phenomena that GR does.

More interesting perhaps is the fact that both the gravitational field and electromagnetic fields propagate billions of times faster than the speed of light as has been shown in many experiments. That is if the sun just vanished, the earth would speed off on a tangent far sooner than it's light would disappear.

I think the gov. is probably 50 years ahead of conventional physics, due to it being hamstrung by their closed mindedness and probably also in part due to a deliberate misinformation campaign designed to maintain the primitive oil economy.

But now science aknowledges that light is effected by gravitational fields.

I know light is bent by a gravitational field, but does it slow down? Isn't it constant to all observers in all reference frames?

Originally posted by Dr X

I know light is bent by a gravitational field, but does it slow down? Isn't it constant to all observers in all reference frames?

Slowing light? how about stopping it altogether.

Lene Hau has already shaken scientists' beliefs about the nature of things. Albert Einstein and just about every other physicist insisted that light travels 186,000 miles a second in free space, and that it can't be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of rush-hour traffic.

Two years later, she brought light to a complete halt in a cloud of ultracold atoms. Next, she restarted the stalled light without changing any of its characteristics, and sent it on its way. These highly successful experiments brought her a tenured professorship at Harvard University and a $500,000 MacArthur Foundation award to spend as she pleased.

source

Another interesting link, imagine 300 times the speed of light!
Speed of light barrier broken