The Behavior of Light in the Presence of a Gravitational Field
Introduction
I will begin this introduction in the manner that I feel is the most appropriate. I must pay homage to Albert Einstein and his views on the universe we live in. If it were not for his ideas, I would not have been able to gain a clearer picture of the true state of the universe. I understand the monumental task I am undertaking with my papers "The Nothing Universe", "Dimensions of Time", "Time Travel Not Possible?", And "Gravity Hypothesis". I am attempting to rewrite our view of the Universe by building upon Einstein's thoughts on the subject. I am also trying to explain some of his misconceptions on the true state of the universe, gravity, time, and how they all relate to one another. In this paper I will be attempting to explain why light bends around a star, in this case, our Sun; in order to allow us to view a star that is hidden behind our sun. Before I begin, I would like to ad that I can conceptually understand how Einstein came to his conclusions. At first glance they would appear to be dead on accurate descriptions of reality. I do not in any way claim that the work that has been done in support of Relativity is wrong. On the contrary, I believe the math as well as the experimentation is accurate and correct. I would have to be to have stood the test of time. What I am claiming is that this supporting evidence has been attributed to in-accurate conclusions. Much the same way that evidence can point overwhelmingly to the wrong suspect. That being said, I will always maintain that I stood on Einstein's shoulders as he stood on the shoulders of great minds before him.
Understanding Gravity
In order to fully understand this hypothesis, I will have to give an overview of my Gravity Hypothesis. In that paper, I maintain that Gravity is not a manifestation of curved Space / Time. I do not even believe this fictional fabric exists. Space is a vacuum. This means that nothing occupies the spaces between the stars, except for comets, asteroids, planets, space dust, etc. Space is the absence of matter where I believe matter used to be. For this concept you will have to read my paper on a "Nothing Universe". In that paper I hypothesized that the this universe used to be composed of a perfect atom in which all free energy was locked up tight. There was no free space in this Nothing Universe, and the only thing that existed was this one perfect atom. So, when the "Big Bang" occurred; what I call "The Event", it was not a singularity that expanded outward. Instead, it was a chain reaction taking place within a sea of atoms. In this case, the Nothing Atom. This expansion is taking place today at speeds greater than that of the speed of light, and if you travel far enough out into space you will come upon a wall of energy that I have termed the "Creation Wave".
So now we have our universe which in the beginning consisted of nothing more than empty space, free energy, and particles. These particles I refer to are protons, electrons, and neutrons. Their counterparts having phased into the anti matter universe, which I maintain behaves in exactly the same way that ours does. Its just made up of anti matter. In our matter universe protons that were flying around attracted an electron. Over and over again a proton would trap an electron and eventually we had massive quantities of hydrogen coming together to create very dense pockets of hydrogen in space. Eventually, so much hydrogen came together that a star was born. All over our young universe this process occurred. Withing these stars the next evolution of matter took place, helium. A star will go through its life cycle and eventually explode or throw off its outer layers providing new material for the birth of new stars. Now, conceive of this event occurring countless times all across the young universe. Within each one of these stars, new elements are being created that will provide us with our periodic table of elements.
The temperatures needed to create these new elements are present within the core of these stars. This is why you will sometimes hear scientists state that we are in fact made of star dust. In a way that is very true. Evolution is a beautiful thing and a clear picture can be gained from this analogy. Hydrogen forms stars, which lead to helium and the evolution of more elements. These elements come together to form planets around a star, and on one of these planets something new happens. The elements present form a simple single celled organism and life has begun! Now we have the evolution of life. The single celled organism becomes multi-celled, which leads to jelly fish, squid, and then to fish; which leads to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, you get the picture. It is a beautiful thing to know that all of this began with the simple merger of protons and electrons! But I digress.
Back to curved space / time, I said before that I believe it does not exist. The idea that time is a thing that can be combined with space, seems too far fetched and complicated to me. Time is a human concept for measuring events, nothing more. Space is what exists within the nothing universe and represents the absence of matter. I believe that the manifestation of gravity can be attributed to a much more familiar and simple concept. This simple concept is magnetism. Opposites attract and like charges repel and so forth. We can observe this every time we look at a compass or use a magnet, however; we can also observe this when an object falls to earth or by looking at our solar system, galaxy, etc. What we traditionally think of magnetism is quite small when compared to the universe. This is because traditionally we attribute magnetism to small scale events and gravity to large scale events. I say they are one and the same. Gravity is nothing more than the manifestation of magnetism on a macro scale. All matter is made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. These particles form elements which form molecules, which form much of the world around us. In the case of a planet, a moon, or a star you have an immense number of protons and electrons. Neutrons, I believe, do not come into play, because they are neutral particles. For this reason I do not believe they play a part in the manifestation of gravity. In order to gain a clearer picture we will consider the Earth as it is related to us and the objects around us.
Everyone knows that when you drop objects of differing weights they will fall at the same rate. This means that gravity is a constant. The earth is pulling on you with the same effect that it is pulling on a pebble or a feather. The reason for this has to do more with the protons and electrons contained within the earth than it does with the protons and neutrons contained within you, the pebble or the feather. This, I believe, is due to the huge number of particles contained within the earth vs the number of particles in you or any object on the earth. In order for my hypothesis to work we have to assume that one force is slightly stronger than another. The attractive force has to be slightly stronger than the repulsive force. This is why objects fall down, rather than up. If the opposite were true then we would spend our time slowly drifting out into space. The key is scale. A proton and an electron will attract one another, because each one has a specific charge. A person and another person of the same size will exert gravity on one another, but very minimal. The difference is a collection of particles vs a particle and a particle. Think of it this way, "Magnetism is to Gravity, as Physics is to Quantum Physics". Each field is dictated by how objects behave based on scale. The behavior of magnetism on a small scale is somewhat different on a large scale, "Gravity".
The Earth pulls on all objects with the same strength. The current Gravitational constant is thought to be somewhere around 6.693 x 10 to the -11 power. The law of universal gravitation, big G is thought to be the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
(Www.wikipedia.org/wiki/gravitational_constant) This constant is not to be confused with Earths gravity (little g) which is calculated by the rate an object accelerates towards the earth as it falls. That number has been placed at around 9.8 m / s2 (meters per second squared). Again I can not argue with the math and I believe the experiments done in this area are valid. I also believe that in order to have the most accurate calculation of gravity we have to understand what it is and then go from there. A gravitational constant is possible and would represent the true pull of one body over another. I concede that constant to the experts and will agree with the accepted number. Perhaps this constant represents the slight difference between the forces of attraction and the forces of repulsion with attraction being the stronger force of the two. Then again, there may not be a constant. Perhaps this constant only appears to be a constant due to our inability to detect small variations in a gravitational field relative to another gravitational field. If we could stand on the sun and then drop a mountain and a grain of sand and then time there descent, would we detect a difference?
What we know of gravity today, the calculations and observations all hold true and have stood the test of time. I am trying to attribute a physical cause for gravitation. Instead of viewing gravity as being caused by a warping of the space / time fabric, I am suggesting that we take a moment and look at gravity another way. Then, perhaps the math will have to be tweaked a bit?
Objects are composed of matter and matter is composed of particles. These particles have a charge. Gravity is the "Sum Total" effect of all of these negatively and positively charged particles contained in an object. It does not matter the number of particles contained within the object that is falling to earth. The only thing that matters is you have a very small object being attracted to a very large object (the earth). The more mass an object contains the greater the amount of gravity. The more similar the masses are then a gravitational equilibrium is met. The greater the difference of mass between two objects then there is greater imbalance. Velocity also comes into play and explains how objects come to orbit one another. So, you are small compared to the earth and you feel a certain amount of gravity while on the earth. On the moon you feel less gravity, but you are larger compared to the moon vs the earth. The So;
1) A planet to person interaction will result in a strong gravity between the two objects.
2) A planet to planet interaction will result in a weak gravity between the two objects.
3) A planet to moon interaction will result in a medium gravity between the two.
4) A Star to planet interaction will result in a medium strong gravity between the two.
It all depends upon the mass of the object relative to another object as well as the velocity of the object, and the distance between the two objects. An object can pass by the earth far enough away to feel its gravity, but if its velocity is great enough then it will continue on its course. The trajectory of the object will depend upon its speed and distance away from the influencing body.
Keep in mind that the more similar in mass two objects are then the particles of that body comes into play. I said before that even though a person exhibits gravity towards the earth, the earth wins out every time. The influence of the mass of my body is negligible when compared to the pull of the earth on us. However, when the mass is sufficient in each object and comparable to the other object, then the molecules of both objects influence how they effect one another. The earth has protons and electrons, the moon has protons and electrons. The protons of the earth are pulling on the electrons of the moon and the protons in the moon feel the presence of the electrons contained within the earth. At the same time the protons of the earth also feel the presence of the protons of the moon.
Similarly, the electrons of the earth also feel the presence of the electrons on the moon. What you end up with is two objects that are trying to get as far away as they can from one another, while at the same time they want to come together. An equilibrium is reached between these competing forces and the moon will assume and orbit around that body. This scenario does not take into account the velocity of each object relative to one another, which is another factor of how masses orbit one another. It also does not take into account the distance of the two objects from one another. The closer these two masses are to one another the stronger they will feel each others gravity. If they get too close to one another than the two objects will collide due to the fact that the attractive force is slightly greater than the repulsive force. This only applies to objects of sufficient mass. Objects of little mass will exhibit very low gravity between one another. If you have a planet and a rock, then the gravity of the planet is strong and will overpower the weak gravity of the rock. The mass of Earth pulls and repels us with the pull winning out. Our bodies pull and push on the earth as well, but we have very little mass to really influence the planets gravitational effect in anyway.
Gravity and its Affect on Light
So now we come to the heart of the matter. A star that is behind the sun can be seen by us on earth, because the light from that star was bent around the sun. Albert Einstein attributed this to the path that light takes across space / time, which is being warped by the Sun's gravitational field. I put forth that the path light takes around the sun is due to the influence of the magnetism on the photon. As the beam of light approaches the sun, the photon begins to feel the effect of the protons and electrons contained within the sun. The sum total which represents gravity bends the light from that star so that it bends around our sun.
As we all know light is an electromagnetic wave, which is a wave composed of both a magnetic wave and an electric wave. It is also viewed as a particle called a photon. As a light beam approaches the sun it is attracted and repelled by the protons and electrons in the sun. The sum total effect of this, "Gravity" attracts and repels the sun at the same time. Coupled with the speed at which the photon is traveling the beam of light bends around the sun. As the light approaches, the photon is both repelled and attracted at the same time. Its velocity wants to carry it straight on, but as it gets closer to the sun the repulsion begins to effect the photons trajectory. Since the attractive force is greater this will lead to a shorter and sharper bend on the approaching side of the sun and a more gradual slope on the backside of the sun as the particle moves away from the sun. In reality, a constant stream of particles of photons are affected creating an unbroken beam of light that bends around the sun and reaches earth. This is how we are able to view light from a distant star that is hidden by the sun. The influence of matter in the sun on a beam of light as it approaches is what causes the electromagnetic wave to bend around the sun and reach earth.
So what about a black hole? The reason that light can not escape a black hole is because the attractive force is great enough that the velocity of light can not overcome it. The result is a beam of light that bends, but ultimately will move into the black hole. This is assuming the light beam passes close enough to the black hole. If a beam of light passes far enough away from a black hole its velocity will overcome the attractive force and will bend sharply around the black hole. Theoretically it would then be possible to see a star that is in a false position in the sky if its light reached earth. It may be possible for two stars that appear in the night sky to actually be the light from only one star. The light from the real star that is located in its actual position, and the bent light that passed by the black hole that is from the same star. This light will cause a phantom star to appear in the night sky. I am not stating that when you look out your window at night you will see one of these phantom stars. I am only stating that it is hypothetically possible.
Conclusion
Particles contained within matter are responsible for the existence of gravity. It is the influence of matter over matter interactions based on velocity and distance. There may or may not be a constant, or if gravity is not a constant; then at the present we are unable to detect this difference. Mainly because we can only perform these experiments here on earth. It would really be nice to have a large rocky body with no atmosphere. The weight of the atmosphere above us along with the drag of our atmosphere on falling objects will effect the outcome of these experiments. In order to prove this hypothesis, an experiment needs to be done to detect the slight difference in the attractive force vs the repulsive force. It would also help to discover a phantom star, which is a star in the night sky that is not actually where it appears to be. For the same reason that light bends around the sun to show us a star that is hidden behind the sun. Einstein was not wrong, he just attributed an actual outcome to the wrong preclusion.