In this paper I will show that light undergoes a centripetal acceleration. The speed of light is constant in three dimensions, so the acceleration will take place in the fourth dimension. This implies that everything in the universe follows this curvature of space-time, and that therefore everything in the universe rotates in the same fashion as light. This is equivalent to stating that the universe itself rotates around the fourth dimension.
oh, by the way, faster than the speed of light that we are able to measure relative to our galactic resistance....
Posted by Timothy Horrick, on 07/12/2010 at 16:24
That my friend is the question, isnt it.... Is it possible to travel faster thatn the speed of light?? What Im saying is consider this.... In our galaxy, there are a certain number of particals in space, a given resistance, we know the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per sec.... we have measured it based upon how fast light is traveling in our galaxy, all light that enters our galaxy go through this resistance, but what if that resistance isnt the same through the universe?? what if in other galaxies that resistance is less? Granted light would still be the ruler of speed, but wouldnt it go faster?? Ponder this, if a gasey red giant implodes after expireing its fuel, and a black hole is created, how is it the emittion of a super nova is present? if nothing can resist the pull of a black hole, shouldnt we see nothing when a star implodes into a black hole?? Or is it that during the explosion the forces are so great, that those particals are exellerated past the speed of light, and because of this are able to leave the gravitational pull of the black hole?? There ofcourse is still the resistance, but due to emence pressure that resistance I think creates the plasma field we see..... Sorry for the spelling, crude I know, but when I think I have to write fast to keep up with my mind...
Posted by Timothy Horrick, on 07/12/2010 at 16:22
Tim Horrick
Think about what you stated here; 'if there where annother plain, one in which space is absent of matter in its entirety, said mass would be able to travel faster then the speed to which is known today'
Travel 'faster' reletive to what?
Tony
Posted by Tony, on 12/29/2009 at 04:41
I thought I should also comment, that the star, or system could be idle, and not moving at all, but as the universe expands, so to does the position of said system, even though the system has no rotation or motion, it would appear to be moving as the universe expands it drags it allong with it... the center of the universe intern should be able to be found by the point in space having the least amount of movement. further more on what I had already said 'BUT, if there where annother plain, one inwhich space is absent of matter in its entirety, said mass would be able to travel faster then the speed to which is known today' The only veriable limiting its speed would be the strength of the energy emitting it. just thought I should through that in, when I read what I wrote I noticed I missed a few points.... allso, I have not read the writers paper, due to not being able to download the pdf. I just wanted to note the inconsistances in mainstream science and what others have critisized. further more, it is not a very good scientific method to just assume that what other scientists have proven is 100% correct. there are allways external veriables that come into play, such as e=mc2... That equation is only consistant in our galaxy, in other galaxys, speed may vary, depending upon density.... but still just a theory... one must keep there mind open to ALL posibilities in order to seek the truth
Posted by Timothy Horrick, on 06/13/2009 at 10:04
To liongold, red shift being explained by the expansion of space is veg. The red shift could be explained by those means if said star is on the bourder of the universe and due to universal expansion, space would infact be expanding, but for the most part, red shift is due to said star moving away from our solarsystem, or our own point of view, likewise blue shift is due to said star traveling torward our solarsystem or point of view. same can be observed when a vehical is traveling torward us with its horn on, the pitch is higher, and as it leaves us said pitch is lower, in relationship to the observer. Secoundly if a photon has relativistic mass, and can dispace space, then the speed atwhich said mass can travel is relative to the mass or lack there of it must travel through. Absense of mass to travel through in its entirety though, said speed would be relative to the size of said mass, and the energy atwhich it is being emitted. Since, space as we know Does have mass in it (dark matter and the such) said mass can only travel at the speed inwhich is allowed by the resistive value of said space.... BUT, if there where annother plain, one inwhich space is absent of matter in its entirety, said mass would be able to travel faster then the speed to which is known today. But since said plain has not been proven, outside of what you have already stated as a huge gravetational pull i.e black hole, or worm hole or the such, said hypothisis is just that. A hypothisis, but for the most part I would have to agree with you
Posted by Timothy Horrick, on 06/13/2009 at 08:39
I was under the impression that the speed of Light changes as it leaves an objects gravitational pull. Or was Stephen Hawking wrong..?
Posted by Patrick, on 05/11/2009 at 02:20
No offense, but this article makes quite a number of assumptions. In the very first part, it is mentioned that the red-shift of light can be explained by the expansion of space, which is factually incorrect. The Hubble redshift observed in the universe is due primarily to the motion of the planets away from each other, which is taken to be because the universe is expanding; not necessarily space itself. The author appears to be confusing the expansion of the universe with the proposed cosmological constant, which need not be true.
Further, an increase in distance need not necessarily necessitate an acceleration. An increase in distance is usually balanced by an increase in time, to render the instantaneous velocity to be a constant. And if the instantaneous velocity is constant, then it logically implies that there is no acceleration.
Another assumption is that we can forget that light does not remain constant, which is stated explicitly in the second part of the article. Further, an acceleration very definitely implies a change in velocity; the acceleration can only then refer to the vector part of the velocity, whereby the direction of light changes (at every point in circular motion). This need not be true except near a very strong gravitational field.
Another assumption, explicitly stated, is that the motion of light from one point to another, then to another added distance, must take place in equal time. however, the same result can be achieved should we allow the wavelength to be constant.
Also, the universe the author refers is curved, but does not have to be circularly curved. Indeed, research is still ongoing to conclude if the universe obeys positive curvature, negative curvature or 'flat' curvature. Indeed, the univberse may even be an ellipse. It should be pointed out that the universe is circular is also an assumption.
Posted by Liongold, on 04/26/2009 at 01:06
To Ashwin,
Just want to correct a few things. Firstly, photons have no rest mass; however, they do have relativistic mass. Secondly, it is not so much mass that causes the curvature of space-time, it is actually energy, divided by c^2. Naturally, since a photon does have mass by the Planck formula, it follows that it does curve space-time, albeit on a small scale.
Posted by Liongold, on 04/26/2009 at 00:36
In the first place, photons travel at the speed of light, ie c, as they are said to be MASSLESS. Hence they have no interaction with space-time as they do not curve it. Hence it has no acceleration.
Posted by Ashwin, on 02/20/2009 at 23:07
If Light Undergoes Centripetal Acceleration Then there should be a Centripetal force acting on photons and as Centripetal force isn't a type of force but is used to denote any of the 4 main forces acting towards the center throughout the locus of the particle then which force is that. Your Proof is assumed to be valid in an isolated universe.
Posted by Devesh, on 01/30/2009 at 18:38
I think it should be kept in mind that this idea of acceleration of light takes place in higher dimension. I suggest the writer to stress this throughout the derivation. I almost started to write a full article to review this paper lol.
Posted by are peace, whose homepage is here on 10/13/2008 at 02:58
What about further than the fourth dimension? Lie E8, for a specific example, shows a theoretical existance of over two-hundred and fifty dimensions--drawn together by string functions. I am impartially curious as to why the fourth dimension serves as a stellar 'pivot point'?
-James C
Posted by James T Coates, on 04/16/2008 at 10:33
Has a competent physicist scrutinized this article ?
If so, what was the result ?
Sincerely, Birger D
Posted by Birger Drake, whose homepage is here on 02/03/2008 at 09:11
