It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Light creates gravity. Here's how.

page: 5
16
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:55 AM
Gravity is directly related to mass/density.

There are 100% working formulas to calculate gravity on different sperical bodies in space, and they use mass and the radius of the body (density, basically) to calculate the gravity. See here.

Gravity varies with the mass and the size of the body. The light falling on the body has no consequence in the current working equation.

If you disagree, I urge you to make your own working formula to calculate gravity based on the light falling onto an object and post it here (it will be a very large scientific achievement if you can).

If you cannot do this then maybe you have to accept that the current equation works fine and light has no bearing on gravity.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by mbkennel

Right so then technically its not the light that is bending due to gravity, it is because the actual space is bending, which is the way I thought it was.

Well, in Einsteinian general relativity, gravity is actual space bending and not a separate force.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Gravity is directly related to mass/density.

There are 100% working formulas to calculate gravity on different sperical bodies in space, and they use mass and the radius of the body (density, basically) to calculate the gravity. See here.

Gravity varies with the mass and the size of the body. The light falling on the body has no consequence in the current working equation.

Almost, but the formulae you saw on those pages are Newtonian formula, which you can get from the relativistic formulae in the limit of low speeds and energy densities. But not entirely correct in all cases (such as rotating neutron stars, the discovery of the decay rates due to gravitational radiation (Einstein only, not Newton) got a Nobel Prize).

If you disagree, I urge you to make your own working formula to calculate gravity based on the light falling onto an object and post it here (it will be a very large scientific achievement if you can).

If you cannot do this then maybe you have to accept that the current equation works fine and light has no bearing on gravity.

Einstein beat me to it, and yes electromagnetism is a source of gravity though experimentally negligible in the solar system.

The gravitation redshift (experimentally seen since 1950's/1960's) shows that gravity does affect light as predicted by Einstein's theory. GPS devices would not have their accuracy if it were wrong.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Sorry, but if light creates gravity, I could put 1,000 3 million candle powered lights in a room, and theoretically, I would not be able to move, or would have more resistance than normal.

And, I can ride a gravi-tron in the dark..

edit on 21-2-2012 by DuShane because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:18 AM
This is really uncanny as I I thought the same thing the other day. If you think about it we all have equations for gravity but nobody can explain how it works. If something with a high gravity can bend light, doesn't that mean that light is inolved somehow?

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Why can't I jump higher at night then?

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

One of the silliest theories yet on ATS.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Just review your Newtonian physics before you jump OVER einstein's and bacon's and Lorentz's.

Flawed as your logic may be, nice try. Try again, but do some research first and don't go yapping about without any science to back up your claims.

---------------------

And yet look at that. You've managed to get stars and flags for this. Just coz it sounded a bit possible? How many mor... uhm... intellectually challenged people do we have here in ATS anyways. I want to shy away now, friends.

edit on 21-2-2012 by headb because: added something

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by mbkennel

If you disagree, I urge you to make your own working formula to calculate gravity based on the light falling onto an object and post it here (it will be a very large scientific achievement if you can).

If you cannot do this then maybe you have to accept that the current equation works fine and light has no bearing on gravity.

Einstein beat me to it, and yes electromagnetism is a source of gravity though experimentally negligible in the solar system.

There are no formula to calculate the gravity of an object based on the amount of light falling on it.

You cannot substitute 'electromagnetism' for 'light'. Light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, yes, but it is only a part.

Originally posted by mbkennel

The gravitation redshift (experimentally seen since 1950's/1960's) shows that gravity does affect light as predicted by Einstein's theory. GPS devices would not have their accuracy if it were wrong.

A GPS device has nothing to do with gravity. The GPS satellites send out a co-ordinated data packet, including the current time and the satellites exact position. The GPS receiver calculates it's position using triangulation and the time the data packets (travelling at the speed of light) take to arrive. I'm not sure where gravity comes into it (except for holding the satellites there
).
edit on 21/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater

It's not even gravity that holds them there, but bent space... space-time warped by mass...

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:18 AM
Here you go sir,

just take it

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:26 AM
If gravity is directly related to mass/density, then it would seem to be impossible for photons to have anything to do with gravity, since they have no mass, and they experience neither time nor distance. Consider this statement:

"If you could attach a clock to a light beam it would not tick at all. We say that to a photon, time does not go by at all (maximum time dilation) and the whole Universe has zero size (maximum length contraction)!!"
-Jim Al-Khalili, Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines.

How's this for a radical statement:

Light = Thought

I've studied Kabbalah, along with a few other metaphysical sciences. The main theme of these sciences is that the higher dimensions exist in the realm of thought: In other words, Mind over Matter. Everything in the physical world was first a thought in the mind of the Creator. Similarly, everything a human being creates begins as a thought in his or her mind, which means that human beings are Co-creators. Therefore Involution must occur before Evolution can begin. This is why there are two separate creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis.

As it turns out, Light and Mass are intricately related a quantum sense. You might enjoy these articles:

The Imaginary Dimension

armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

Zero and Infinity

armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

The Incompleteness Theorem

armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

edit on 21-2-2012 by SimontheMagus because: addition

edit on 21-2-2012 by SimontheMagus because: error

edit on 21-2-2012 by SimontheMagus because: addition

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Actually a light bulb can attract paper just like a magnet attracts metal!!

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater

It's not even gravity that holds them there, but bent space... space-time warped by mass...

I could have sworn it was gravity. (and centrifugal force.)

Unless you guys can come up with a mathematical formula which can replace the current formula to calculate gravity based on the light falling on an object, I really don't see this as plausible, useful or conspiratorial.

BTW I don't think science knows everything, and I understand it has it's shortcomings, but yeh.
edit on 21/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:39 AM

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by smithjustinb

So at night we are in danger of being swept into space if we jump too high?

No sir. Please read the OP carefully and the replies that follow.

Or bright light sources (you know, them megawatt flashlights) can be used like rocket engines.

Now we know how UFO's work!

I know right.

Seriously, we have low light, high gravity situations and high light, low gravity situations. This would be the strongest argument against your theory.

Actually, it may not matter. If the earth was in total darkness a single pinpoint of light would be enough to excite a single electron to accelerate on its downward trajectory and have the same magnetic effect on all other electrons on that entire body.

... and electrons don't "capture" photons (as far as I know).

Exactly... "as far as you know" and light doesn't create gravity as far as you know either, but it's the unknowns that lie in wait for us to discover and change the face of intellectual excellence.

When a photon collides with an atom and is converted to fundamental particles and energy, the orbits of the electrons increase in diameter to accommodate new charge levels. When the electrons drop back to their previous levels, the energy is re-radiated out, but usually at a lower energy/frequency.

edit on 20/2/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

This kind of sounds like a spin-off of what I'm saying.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by randomname

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by smithjustinb

Your logic is flawed..

Or have you seen anyone floating around at night, ever ?

not only that, have you seen astronauts in space. the sun is directly bombarding them, but they're not glued to their cabin.

That's because they are not magnetically attracted to the rest of the earth.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by lonegurkha
You do know that light can also be a wave right, not just a particle.

So can electrons. I don't see how that necessarily works against my theory though.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by ILikeStars
sometimes i sit and ponder. sometimes i just sit. sometimes i just ponder.

could consciousness be a byproduct of the singularity....

It's definitely worth looking into. I'm starting to think that consciousness is what you get when light meets gravity. So I came up with this theory to help me find consciousness.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by UKmonster
Surely if your theory is correct gravity would be random as light doesn't travel in the same directtion, as you should know light is scattered when it hits objects, and wouldnt a mirror be able to bend ggravity? And why is gravity weaker on the moon despite it getting almost the same light dose from the sun?

Wherever the greatest light source is determines what direction the electrons will accelerate. The moon is weaker in gravity because it is less massive. The more mass, the greater the quantum magnetism.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by HumansEh
Lovin' this thread ,S&F OP for the mind exercise and throwing out your theory.
I am no physicist (I'm barely human) but I enjoy learning about this subject and enjoy opening new avenues of thinking even more.

Forgive my ignorance as an interested lay-person but would I be correct in assuming that according to your theory an electron could be suspended by an omni-surrounding light source equal in all directions as the light would repulse the electron equally from all sides?

I think this is basically what I'm saying is happening in black holes with possibly a few other variables to consider.

top topics

16