It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Light creates gravity. Here's how.

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You might want to read about the various theories that attempt to describe gravity as an outward pressure effect. There is some evidence that suggests there might be some truth to a "pressure" gravity. It is also possible that gravity isn't caused by a single thing, but that there is more than one source involved. A satisfactory description of gravity does not exist as of yet, so I would be foolish to dismiss your idea.

-rrr




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


yes.

If you made a crosshair of lasers powerful enough, the intersection point would have a gravitational pull.


Would it be a gravitational pull, or just a photo-magnetic effect like two like charges repelling?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
love the thread, i'm a total noob with all this so please don't jump on me or kill me.

If light travels at such an insane speed, is it possible that the electrons that orbit the atomic nucleus are actually there to protect the nucleus from the bombardment? by "attaching" to the photon by whatever force (magnetism),carrying it round it's orbit of the nucleus and then releasing it?

also, does it not mean that the electron and the light would have to be so perfectly in sync that the electron was able to hold onto the photon for long enough that it could could almost orbit 180 to the other side of the nucleus before releasing it? If the magnetism was too strong the photon would become forever attached and if it was too weak the photon would attach to the electron but spin the electron so fast that it would release too quickly and crash into the nucleus?

Just interested, it almost sounds what the OP is saying is that the electron draws the photon,attaches by magnetism, orbits round the nucleus and then releases it on it's way, almost protecting the nucleus in some way maybe?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


if that were the case, would'nt we be able to manipulate gravity in dark rooms, or with artificial light?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Glad we got that cleared up.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


yes.

If you made a crosshair of lasers powerful enough, the intersection point would have a gravitational pull.


Would it be a gravitational pull, or just a photo-magnetic effect like two like charges repelling?


It would be a gravitational pull, but in practice, the electromagnetic effects would be so much larger on any other body than gravitational effects.

For nearly all practical computations, other than large-scale astrophysics (galactic cluster to big-bang stuff), the energy density of light that's around (say cosmic background radiation) is sufficiently small source that it is ignored as quantitatively insignificant, but the self consistent theory requires it to be there.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfentry
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


if that were the case, would'nt we be able to manipulate gravity in dark rooms, or with artificial light?


Yes, but it's not practically feasible.

Say in a rough computation, 10 grams of matter is fully converted to energy in an A-bomb explosion, and suppose all that energy goes into electromagnetic radiation. That's a buttload of E&M energy (E=mc^2) on any human terms and obviously uncontainable and yet, this quantity of E&M radiation would cause gravitation (in rough order of magnitude) only about as much as 10 grams of matter, which is very small.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 



basically what i'm gathering is that light is cannibalistic in nature



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
What if light has more complexity than we thought, what if it is literally conscious? Or some form of it?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

True, but why does mass vary? Is it because spacetime is actually bending, or is it because light causes the particles to accelerate causing a quantum-magnetic/gravitational effect. If spacetime was really bending, then why wouldn't you experience time differently in space than you do on Earth?


Mass doesn't vary. Different elements have different mass and different bodies have different density but mass is a constant for each element.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


You do experience time differently in space then you do on Earth.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

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.


It doesn't matter. The math could still be right even though it supports a wrong idea. For example, I could say 1+1=2, and say, "Yes we have 2! It must be right." When in actuality, you never had 1 and 1, you really had 4 halves.


It does matter! How do you expect anybody to take you seriously if all you can say is that the current model is wrong without offering an alternative.

I could go around telling people that 1+1 does not equal 2 until I'm blue in the face but until I answer why (show me, mathematically, that 1+1 != 2) and offer an alternative (how do we calculate 2 then?) people will more than likely laugh at me.

You knowledge is useless if it doesn't have an application. Until you have a usable equation your knowledge isn't usable. Show me how to use your knowledge to calculate the gravity on earth. Until then, you're just blowing hot air up my ass.

There's an old Electronics Engineering joke which basically says that all electronics runs off magic smoke. If you release the magic smoke (i.e. it blows up) then that will cause you problems.
Nobody can prove it wrong, nobody can say otherwise, however nobody can come up with an equation to say how much magic smoke a transistor requires.
It is a joke and should be taken as such, like this thread



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by smithjustinb

True, but why does mass vary? Is it because spacetime is actually bending, or is it because light causes the particles to accelerate causing a quantum-magnetic/gravitational effect. If spacetime was really bending, then why wouldn't you experience time differently in space than you do on Earth?


Mass doesn't vary. Different elements have different mass and different bodies have different density but mass is a constant for each element.


I didn't mean to say mass. I know what mass is. I think i meant to say weight or gravity.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by smithjustinb

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.


It doesn't matter. The math could still be right even though it supports a wrong idea. For example, I could say 1+1=2, and say, "Yes we have 2! It must be right." When in actuality, you never had 1 and 1, you really had 4 halves.


It does matter! How do you expect anybody to take you seriously if all you can say is that the current model is wrong without offering an alternative.

I could go around telling people that 1+1 does not equal 2 until I'm blue in the face but until I answer why (show me, mathematically, that 1+1 != 2) and offer an alternative (how do we calculate 2 then?) people will more than likely laugh at me.

You knowledge is useless if it doesn't have an application. Until you have a usable equation your knowledge isn't usable. Show me how to use your knowledge to calculate the gravity on earth. Until then, you're just blowing hot air up my ass.


I'll figure it out one day. I'm not that saavy on high level math, but I do have a pretty good brain.


There's an old Electronics Engineering joke which basically says that all electronics runs off magic smoke. If you release the magic smoke (i.e. it blows up) then that will cause you problems.
Nobody can prove it wrong, nobody can say otherwise, however nobody can come up with an equation to say how much magic smoke a transistor requires.


I thought the magic smoke was what happened when you accidentally connected l1 and l3 to h1 and h4 AND to x1 and x2 on a transformer.


It is a joke and should be taken as such, like this thread


I'm just going to pretend like you didn't say that, so this doesn't turn into a 3rd grade playground argument. Some people are actually professional around here. I would expect more from an engineer, and I'm just a maintenance technician.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

There's an old Electronics Engineering joke which basically says that all electronics runs off magic smoke. If you release the magic smoke (i.e. it blows up) then that will cause you problems.
Nobody can prove it wrong, nobody can say otherwise, however nobody can come up with an equation to say how much magic smoke a transistor requires.


I thought the magic smoke was what happened when you accidentally connected l1 and l3 to h1 and h4 AND to x1 and x2 on a transformer.


LOL nice.


Originally posted by smithjustinb

It is a joke and should be taken as such, like this thread


I'm just going to pretend like you didn't say that, so this doesn't turn into a 3rd grade playground argument. Some people are actually professional around here. I would expect more from an engineer, and I'm just a maintenance technician.


Fair comment. But seriously.

Why doesn't the gravity of an object vary by the amount of light falling on it? (or even ambient light should affect gravity).
Why doesn't gravity increase (or decrease?) when you approach suns/stars?
Why don't suns 'push' instead of 'pull'? (as the light leaves the sun, should it 'push stuff'? (gravitationally speaking)).



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

What is consciousness?....

....perhaps the feeling you are feeling is actually the harmonious resonance between the electrons in your body and electrons surrounding your body so that your body becomes free of gravity's hold on you.
edit on 21-2-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)


If that is the case then it will be measurable using scales.



(sorry wasn't picking on you OP, just reading back to the parts I have missed)
edit on 21/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I just did a little reading on the photo-electric effect and it basically said, "If an electron fully absorbs the energy of a photon, then it is ejected from the atom." This is how light is harnessed for electricity.

So we now have confirmed that electrons do, in fact, absorb energy from light.


Electrons can absorb energy from photons when irradiated, but they usually follow an "all or nothing" principle. All of the energy from one photon must be absorbed and used to liberate one electron from atomic binding, or else the energy is re-emitted.


So basically, this says that if the electron doesn't escape, the light reflects. Of course, that is after the photon and the electron have interacted.

It also says that electrons absorb energy from light. What form would this absorbed energy be in? Kinetic energy. The electron accelerates. If it accelerates at a fast enough rate, it leaves. If it doesn't, then it causes gravity and the remaining energy after the interaction is reflected light.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


smithjustinb,
I thank you for this post and ammend you on your beautiful thought process. I do think you have a good theory of light creating gravity, I think it is absoltely fasicinating! But I do see where others are coming from about the Night time aspect of the light creating gravity idea..Which maybe if I knew more in depth your flow and process of how the light would still effect us at night time I would understand, but i unforunately do not. However this is a fascinating theory and I loved reading every bit of it!!



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by smithjustinb

There's an old Electronics Engineering joke which basically says that all electronics runs off magic smoke. If you release the magic smoke (i.e. it blows up) then that will cause you problems.
Nobody can prove it wrong, nobody can say otherwise, however nobody can come up with an equation to say how much magic smoke a transistor requires.


I thought the magic smoke was what happened when you accidentally connected l1 and l3 to h1 and h4 AND to x1 and x2 on a transformer.


LOL nice.


Originally posted by smithjustinb

It is a joke and should be taken as such, like this thread


I'm just going to pretend like you didn't say that, so this doesn't turn into a 3rd grade playground argument. Some people are actually professional around here. I would expect more from an engineer, and I'm just a maintenance technician.


Fair comment. But seriously.

Why doesn't the gravity of an object vary by the amount of light falling on it? (or even ambient light should affect gravity).
Why doesn't gravity increase (or decrease?) when you approach suns/stars?
Why don't suns 'push' instead of 'pull'? (as the light leaves the sun, should it 'push stuff'? (gravitationally speaking)).


I don't think is as much about the amount of light as it is the amount of electrons, although I'm sure there could be something I am unaware of. That's why mass is directly proportional to gravity. The more mass, the more electrons.

Light pushes the electrons down. It's not strong enough to keep them down, but only strong enough to accelerate them down when they are already on their downward trajectory. If you imagine two unbound atoms side by side, when one electron moves, so does the other (by magnetism). Now if you imagine a circle of unbound atoms side by side, when one electron is facing outward, all of them are. When one electron is facing inward, all of them are. That's why the sun isn't blasting us out of the solar system. The sun is actually pushing on us and pulling on us at the same time.

Of course, there will likely be some losses and some unknown variables here and there that would cause geo-magnetic as well as geo-gravitational anomalies. I believe there is actually a known spot on Earth where gravity is abnormal which would be explained much easier as to why by using my theory vs. using Einstein's I would think.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Katharos62191
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


smithjustinb,
I thank you for this post and ammend you on your beautiful thought process. I do think you have a good theory of light creating gravity, I think it is absoltely fasicinating! But I do see where others are coming from about the Night time aspect of the light creating gravity idea..Which maybe if I knew more in depth your flow and process of how the light would still effect us at night time I would understand, but i unforunately do not. However this is a fascinating theory and I loved reading every bit of it!!


I think I expained it more clearly in the post below yours.
edit on 21-2-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join