Does gravity influence electromagnetic wavelength (light) to cause sky-color?
If photons decelerate as they leave the sun, that would mean that a corresponding electromagnetic frequency shift would occur as distance from the sun increases. Likewise, as radiation enters into significant proximity with a planet or other massive body, the frequency would increase as the light accelerates and nears the planet.
In the case of Earth, the photo-deceleration caused by solar gravity at Earth's particular distance from the sun would reduce the speed/frequency of sunlight to a certain frequency, which would then be increased by the gravitational pull of the Earth. Does this produce the particular "blue shift" in sunlight that makes the sky blue?
For Mars then, the distance from the sun is farther, therefore more solar deceleration occurs, bringing light to an even lower frequency than it has reached when entering into Earth's gravitation. This lower frequency light would then accelerate less on Mars than on Earth due to Mars' gravitation being less than Earth's.
Extrapolate for Venus: would Venus be subject to higher frequency sunlight, perhaps ultraviolet? Recognize that in this theory, the same sunlight that reaches Earth at one frequency reaches other planets at a different frequency according to the distance from the sun and the amount of deceleration the photons sustain as a result of solar gravity.
Now, what about the distant planets like Jupiter, Saturn, etc.? Why would they reflect visible light frequencies to Earth instead of receiving and reflecting only frequencies lower than the visible spectrum? Could this be a result of high gravitational force causing sub-visible frequencies to accelerate to visible ones before reflecting in the direction of Earth?
Does Jupiter's particular density and volume characteristics account for the visibility of certain layers of the atmosphere but not others? I.e. does light traveling deeper than the visible layer of Jupiter accelerate to a frequency above the visible spectrum? Does it then still reflect, or does Jupiter's dense core bend it around the planet and send it further into space from the sun?
How could an observational experiment be designed to determine the speed of light as a function of gravitation?
EARTHLY IMPLICATIONS
If solar photons are affected by gravity, might this have an effect on the behavior of light close to the surface of Earth?
For example, would lower-frequency light/radiation fall to the ground closer to the equator than higher frequency light? Would this also explain the electromagnetic uniqueness of the polar area(s)? What about the abundance of UV light that has been attributed to an "ozone hole?"
LUNAR IMPLICATIONS
Is the "corona" observed during solar eclipses not actually a layer of the distant sun, but rather an effect of lunar gravity on light as it bends around the moon to get to Earth?
Are you stupid? Have you never heard the explanation of why the sky is blue? If what you are saying was true, THE SUN WOULD BE BLUE. Is the sun blue? Is it red on mars? NO. It's freaking yellow. The sky is blue because of a number of complex interactions between light, air and water vapor. Why are you so stupid?
From your PM:
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
I reported your post as being rude. I am interested in your reasoning and argumentation. There is no need to insult me instead of convincing me with evidence.
The sun sends out a wide-spectrum of radiation. Therefore direct sunlight would appear white in any gravitational situation because there are significant photons traveling at any wavelength, causing the observed "white shift."
The sky is not direct sunlight, it is the result of many photons be bent toward the observer, either by refraction or, as I am arguing, as a result of gravity.
If you could explain the specific logic of the sky being blue as a result of refraction (or refer me to a detailed online explanation), I would be interested.
You suggest it is stupid to question the explanation you have been taught, but have you considered that much stupidity involves taking insufficient explanations to be true, without thorough investigation of them?
From Wikipedia:
Basic basic research here. The sun doesn't have enough gravity to substantially "red shift" its radiation.
Link: Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
The sun sends out a wide-spectrum of radiation. Therefore direct sunlight would appear white in any gravitational situation because there are significant photons traveling at any wavelength, causing the observed "white shift."
The sky is not direct sunlight, it is the result of many photons be bent toward the observer, either by refraction or, as I am arguing, as a result of gravity.
If you could explain the specific logic of the sky being blue as a result of refraction (or refer me to a detailed online explanation), I would be interested.
You suggest it is stupid to question the explanation you have been taught, but have you considered that much stupidity involves taking insufficient explanations to be true, without thorough investigation of them?
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
When light passes through our atmosphere, photons interact with it through scattering. If the light does not interact with the atmosphere, it is called direct radiation and is what you see if you were to look directly at the sun. Indirect radiation is light that has been scattered in the atmosphere. For example, on an overcast day when you can't see your shadow there is no direct radiation reaching you, it has all been scattered. As another example, due to a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering, shorter (blue) wavelengths scatter more easily than longer (red) wavelengths. This is why the sky looks blue, you are seeing scattered blue light. This is also why sunsets are red. Because the sun is close to the horizon, the sun rays pass through more atmosphere than normal to reach your eye. Much of the blue light has been scattered out, leaving the red light in a sunset.
Basic basic research here. The sun doesn't have enough gravity to substantially "red shift" its radiation.
Link: Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 12 2009, 03:04 PM)
From your PM(...)
You can leave now.
You can leave now.
It was a rude response, but why not? The OP is obviously a troll: A truly stupid person wouldn't have the wit to present the snare, and the tone of the 'exposition' would have been more like an honest question.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
I reported your post as being rude. I am interested in your reasoning and argumentation. There is no need to insult me instead of convincing me with evidence.
That's the problem with trolls. They say they want to be 'convinced' when what they mean is that they want to be argued with and debated over and fawned upon for their stunning brilliance...
That's the problem with trolls. They say they want to be 'convinced' when what they mean is that they want to be argued with and debated over and fawned upon for their stunning brilliance...
Yet another PM:
You do that, please. When you do, also report that I told you to *** yourself.
The point of my post was to encourage you to learn to read, and at that, be able to manage high-school physics before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Don't doubt that this message will appear in open forum, troll. As well as any epistles forthcoming from you.
Dolt. Troll. Idiot. Fool.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
I just reported your post as being rude, insulting, and adding nothing constructive to the discussion. I asked if you could be prohibited from posting, or at least put on probation.
That's freaking hilarious. No, you need to do a bare minimum of research before you go and ask other people to do the research for you. All you had to do was Google "Why is the sky blue" and you would have gotten millions of links, all with the same answer. Nothing makes me gag like complete and utter laziness.
That's freaking hilarious. No, you need to do a bare minimum of research before you go and ask other people to do the research for you. All you had to do was Google "Why is the sky blue" and you would have gotten millions of links, all with the same answer. Nothing makes me gag like complete and utter laziness.
QUOTE
what are you talking about? If you can't explain the basis for your knowledge, what's the point of putting it over someone else's? Posts should be enlightening in some way or other (i.e. constructive), not insulting to other people and degrading to their ideas.
I'm going to report your post as being insulting without making any constructive suggestions. Just putting people down like that is going to intimidate people out of posting on the forum.
I'm going to report your post as being insulting without making any constructive suggestions. Just putting people down like that is going to intimidate people out of posting on the forum.
You do that, please. When you do, also report that I told you to *** yourself.
The point of my post was to encourage you to learn to read, and at that, be able to manage high-school physics before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Don't doubt that this message will appear in open forum, troll. As well as any epistles forthcoming from you.
Dolt. Troll. Idiot. Fool.
Yet another PM:
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
This is hopefully the last time I will bother responding to you, because it irritates me to do so. I suggest you avoid me too because we're just going to fight.
I googled this question but I think there is some value in integrating photogravitation into the issue. The problem with most of the physics I read is that it treats massive objects as if they were observable without regard for the fact that the light used to observe them has been influenced by their gravitation.
Why wouldn't this be true about the sun, Earth, moon, Mars, etc.?
Knowledge evolves. It's not the case that every new theory is wrong just because there is an existing theory already.
Good god. In case you haven't figured it out, I'm here for the LULZ. You are obviously providing the rare resource of LULZ to me, but I have to share, because your comments are just too precious to waste.
Of course gravitational redshift should be taken into account. It has been taken into account for longer than anyone here has been alive. Why would you assume that you have magically discovered something new when people have been ACTUALLY STUDYING these problems for hundreds of years.
I googled this question but I think there is some value in integrating photogravitation into the issue. The problem with most of the physics I read is that it treats massive objects as if they were observable without regard for the fact that the light used to observe them has been influenced by their gravitation.
Why wouldn't this be true about the sun, Earth, moon, Mars, etc.?
Knowledge evolves. It's not the case that every new theory is wrong just because there is an existing theory already.
Good god. In case you haven't figured it out, I'm here for the LULZ. You are obviously providing the rare resource of LULZ to me, but I have to share, because your comments are just too precious to waste.
Of course gravitational redshift should be taken into account. It has been taken into account for longer than anyone here has been alive. Why would you assume that you have magically discovered something new when people have been ACTUALLY STUDYING these problems for hundreds of years.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.