How long does it take sunlight to reach the Earth?

Apr 15, 2013 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today

Here's a question… how long does it take sunlight to reach Earth? This sounds like a strange question, but think about it. Sunlight travels at the speed of light. Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes.

The short answer is that it takes sunlight an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

If the Sun suddenly disappeared from the Universe (not that this could actually happen, don't panic), it would take a little more than 8 minutes before you realized it was time to put on a sweater.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Here's the math. We orbit the Sun at a distance of about 150 million km. moves at 300,000 kilometers/second. Divide these and you get 500 seconds, or 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

This is an average number. Remember, the Earth follows an around the Sun, ranging from 147 million to 152 million km. At its closest point, sunlight only takes 490 seconds to reach Earth. And then at the most distant point, it takes 507 seconds for to make the journey.

But the story of light gets even more interesting, when you think about the journey light needs to make inside the Sun.

You probably know that photons are created by fusion reactions inside the Sun's core. They start off as and then are emitted and absorbed countless times in the Sun's radiative zone, wandering around inside the massive star before they finally reach the .

What you probably don't know, is that these photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago and it took that long for them to be emitted by the sun.

Once they escaped the surface, it was only a short 8 minutes for those photons to cross the vast distance from the Sun to the Earth

As you look outward into space, you're actually looking backwards in time.

The light you see from your computer is nanoseconds old. The light reflected from the surface of the Moon takes only a second to reach Earth. The is more than 8 light-minutes away. And so, if the light from the nearest star (Alpha Centauri) takes more than 4 years to reach us, we're seeing that star 4 years in the past.

There are galaxies millions of light-years away, which means the light we're seeing left the surface of those stars millions of years ago. For example, the galaxy M109 is located about 83.5 million light-years away.

If aliens lived in those galaxies, and had strong enough telescopes, they would see the Earth as it looked in the past. They might even see dinosaurs walking on the surface.

Explore further: Suddenly, the sun is eerily quiet: Where did the sunspots go?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

SDO's crazy-looking Sun due to syzygy

Apr 04, 2011

It looks like something is eating the Sun in recent pictures from the Solar Dynamics Observatory — and in recent SDO videos, the Sun suddenly disappears! What is going on? Could it be aliens, Planet X, ...

Earth's orbit creates more than a leap year

Feb 08, 2008

The Earth's orbital behaviors are responsible for more than just presenting us with a leap year every four years. According to Michael E. Wysession, Ph.D., associate professor of earth and planetary sciences ...

Sun emit a mid-level flare

Nov 13, 2012

(Phys.org)—On Nov. 13, 2012, the sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 9:04 p.m. EST.

A cool discovery about the Sun's next-door twin

Feb 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—ESA's Herschel space observatory has detected a cool layer in the atmosphere of Alpha Centauri A, the first time this has been seen in a star beyond our own Sun. The finding is not only important ...

Fear no supernova

Dec 16, 2011

Given the incredible amounts of energy in a supernova explosion – as much as the sun creates during its entire lifetime – another erroneous doomsday theory is that such an explosion could happen ...

Prepare for a total solar eclipse

Nov 13, 2012

(Phys.org)—Tomorrow's total solar eclipse will only be visible in its entirety to ground-based observers watching from northern Australia, but ESA's Sun-watching Proba-2 satellite will have a ringside seat ...

Recommended for you

New launch date set for ISS delivery vessel

10 hours ago

A robot ship will be launched from Kourou, French Guiana, after a five-day delay on July 29 to deliver provisions to the International Space Station, space transport firm Arianespace said Tuesday.

The heart of an astronaut, five years on

12 hours ago

The heart of an astronaut is a much-studied thing. Scientists have analyzed its blood flow, rhythms, atrophy and, through journal studies, even matters of the heart. But for the first time, researchers are ...

Image: Kaleidoscopic view of Mars

18 hours ago

Astrophotographer Leo Aerts from Belgium took advantage of the recent opposition of Mars and captured the Red Planet both "coming and going" in this montage of images taken from October 2013 to June of 2014. ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2013
Thanks for the 4th grade science lesson.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (19) Apr 15, 2013
Thanks for the 4th grade science lesson.


Ya're welcome. Ya do understand that Universe Today is a popular science site, and they fulfill a very worthy niche on the internet?

nkalanaga
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2013
I imagine there are a few fourth graders that read Phys.org, and here in eastern Kentucky, I know a lot of adults that could use a "4th grade science lesson". Many of them wouldn't understand, or believe, this article.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2013
I would suggest that there is a slight error in the simplification. They say: "What you probably don't know, is that these photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago and it took that long for them to be emitted by the sun." In reality, each interaction of a photon and a particle entails interactions that produce daughter photons, not the same photon (the wavelength does not even have to be the same or we would be showered with all gamma rays). So, the photons we see were probably generated in the photosphere and are only 8.5 minutes old. The process started long ago.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2013
The short answer is that it takes sunlight an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.
……..
Here's the math. We orbit the Sun at a distance of about 150 million km. Light moves at 300,000 kilometers/second. Divide these and you get 500 seconds, or 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

Now let us try a more difficult question in which the teacher could not answer; how the light waves could propagate though empty space with a constant speed? Maybe this mechanism of light waves could give us some hint.
http://www.vacuum...21〈=en
Q-Star
4 / 5 (16) Apr 15, 2013
The short answer is that it takes sunlight an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.
……..
Here's the math. We orbit the Sun at a distance of about 150 million km. Light moves at 300,000 kilometers/second. Divide these and you get 500 seconds, or 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

Now let us try a more difficult question in which the teacher could not answer; how the light waves could propagate though empty space with a constant speed? Maybe this mechanism of light waves could give us some hint.

http blah, blah, blah,,,


Ya must have had a pretty poor teacher if your teacher couldn't answer that one.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2013


Ya must have had a pretty poor teacher if your teacher couldn't answer that one.


Please tell him, but not the answer that light wave could propagate by itself, because it is wrong!
matterdoc
1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2013
If earth is orbiting around sun (in elliptical path) author's reasoning may be right. But how is it possible for a free body to orbit around another moving body (sun is a moving body) in geometrically closed path?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2013
If earth is orbiting around sun (in elliptical path) author's reasoning may be right. But how is it possible for a free body to orbit around another moving body (sun is a moving body) in geometrically closed path?


First, it depends on your definition of a "geometrically closed path." The elliptical orbits precess and both the sun and each of the planets orbit about the center of gravity which is different from the geometrical center of the sun. On top of that, the orbits are normally described with respect to the center of gravity and are not in closed form unless you neglect perturbations from the other objects in the solar system. So, I am not really sure what you are asking but a good book introducing gravitation at a beginning physics level will give you Kepler's laws of motion and Newton's view of gravity which is enough to get the simple version of motion (without general relativity).
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2013
I imagine there are a few fourth graders that read Phys.org, and here in eastern Kentucky, I know a lot of adults that could use a "4th grade science lesson". Many of them wouldn't understand, or believe, this article.

nkalanaga,
I know what you're saying all too well. Last year, after being found growing my chemotherapy relief medication in Louisville, I was sent to the Muhlenberg Co. Detention Center and given shock probation after 180 days. I have never before experienced that level of uneducated, ill-informed general population. (I did community service work). Few people in the county ever bothered to achieve even a GED.

Having no desire to watch racing, wrestling and reality shows, I spent my time sketching from memory: The Standard Model of Particle Physics, Particle Decays, the Solar System including the Kepler Belt, Oort Cloud and the solar-wind-meets-stellar-wind heliopause. No one had a clue, and most everyone thought my education was worthless, including the deputies
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2013
Well, then it isn't just Appalachia! It sounds like the rest of KY isn't much better... Maybe one of these days the Commonwealth will join the 21st century. Or at least the last half of the 20th.
Ducklet
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2013
Yeah, well that's in them metric distances. We'all use American distance (miles) here. How long will it take if in American miles???
Ober
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2013
Something to add to this. Assuming the speed of Gravity is the same as light, then we would remain in orbit around the sun, for the exact same time as it took the light (or lack of light) to reach us.
The Earth would fly off on a tangent. Now extrapolate this to the other planets, and each planet would fly off on a tangent at different times, with Mercury first, then Venus, etc etc.
But DOES gravity travel at the speed of light? What is Gravity? IS it just deformation of Spacetime by a mass? So if the mass instantly dissappears, then is the restoration of spacetime, or elasticity of space, limited to light speed, instant or somewhere between?? Does spacetime have elasticity, like a stretching rubber band? IF it does, and it is equal to light speed, then does maxwells equations also describe spacetime itself since they predict the speed of light so well? What is the elasticity of spacetime? Is it the same EVERYWHERE? Is elasticity the real reason for Light and Gravity?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2013

Please tell him, but not the answer that light wave could propagate by itself, because it is wrong!


of course. When a photon gets ejected and has no mass all that thick and goo-ish aether is going to block it on it's way so, there must be some force propagating the photon.

Not sure what is more Ockham-like... adding aether seems much simpler than adding 300 years of science to make it work. You must be right then!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2013
But DOES gravity travel at the speed of light?

That's exactly what the LIGO experiments are designed to find out.
The answer - at present - is: we don't know (which is one of the most exciting states to be in in science).
alfie_null
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2013
Well, then it isn't just Appalachia! It sounds like the rest of KY isn't much better... Maybe one of these days the Commonwealth will join the 21st century. Or at least the last half of the 20th.

Found a graphic of geographic education achievement distribution here: http://www.census...-566.pdf on pages 8 and 9. Quick summary: East KY, west TX, parts of LA, GA, and MS are pretty light on high school diplomas. I wonder if that's much of an issue in those states?

Regarding the inside of the sun, considering the internal temperature (say, at the core), is any of the radiation at the core in the visual spectrum?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2013

The answer - at present - is: we don't know (which is one of the most exciting states to be in in science).


There was recent research that found evidence that gravitational waves move at 0.95~1.05x C, likely to be exactly C. It was measured by changes in earth surface due to gravity during a solar eclipse.

I can't find the article atm, but I'll post it here later.

In another article about Ligo and the Leiden detector, scientist were very confident to have an exact measure around 2016.

@Natello
if gravitational waves do propagate superluminally, it doesn't bother you that in case our sun happens to dissapear(our any similar thought-theory) we would be affected upfront of the incident?

And what is the difference between observable matter or non-obeservable matter according to you? Isn't gravity caused by the amount of mass, regardless of what type of matter it is?

Do you entirely believe in the existence of AWT or is it just a way of visualising aspects of physics for you?
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2013
Ducklet: The time would be the same, since both Metric and Imperial systems use the same time units.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2013
if gravitational waves do propagate superluminally, it doesn't bother you that in case our sun happens to disappear(our any similar thought-theory) we would be affected upfront of the incident?
IMO we are experiencing the distant cosmic events all the time in form of CMBR noise.
Do you entirely believe in the existence of AWT or is it just a way of visualizing aspects of physics for you
At the water surface it's quite normal, that the massive events (like the underwater explosions) manifest itself before the surface waves bring another evidence. In addition, just these underwater waves generate the Brownian noise at the surface. So at the moment, when we can observe the CMBR noise in vacuum, I've no reason for to doubt the concept of superluminal gravity waves: one aspect of observable reality explains the another one. At my blog I collected many other evidences for this model.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
BTW Theories don't exist - they're just an invented models/approximations for explanation/predictions of reality. In particular, I don't believe, that something like the aether actually exists - just the random Universe appears like the nested density fluctuations of particle gas for us, because it's the minimalistic deterministic approximation of observable physical reality. IMO universe is completely random stuff, we are just sampling portion of this randomness in form of space-time curvatures, which do APPEAR like the particle gas. The Boltzmann gas is just one of many ways, how to model the observable portion of this randomness. I'm using it just because it's sufficiently illustrative and general.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
Another evidence for superluminal propagation of gravitational waves comes from Konstantin Meyl and Eric Dollard's experiments with scalar waves (which are equivalent to gravitational waves in AWT) and the superluminal interactions during quantum entanglement (which is mediated with gravitational waves too). The LeSage gravity theory and holographic model of Universe do require the superluminal propagation of gravitational waves to work. After all, the constant speed of light in special relativity is constrained to flat uniform space-time only, so that it's evident, the curved space-time of general relativity would violate the special relativity too.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2013
Yeah, well that's in them metric distances. We'all use American distance (miles) here. How long will it take if in American miles???


English Imperial measures actually. We use miles here in the UK still, despite the damned EU.

http://en.wikiped..._systems
Ober
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2013
Well only antialias_physorg and vlaaing peerd, attempted to answer my questions, THANK YOU. The rest of the post are just more AWT BS.

Strange really as I thought I was asking valid science questions that are related to the actual physorg article.

Does Big Al (Einstein) have anything to say about the elasticity of space? Did he consider the thought experiment of the sun instantly dissapearing?
beleg
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2013
Ask kids if they need time or distance to perform addition or subtraction.
How can you perform any measurement without adding or subtracting?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2013

(Einstein) have anything to say about the elasticity of space? Did he consider the thought experiment of the sun instantly dissapearing?


Not sure about the thought experiment but something similar must have crossed his mind.

It's how you would define elasticity, it's not like bent space-time shoots off stars and planets like a reverse bungee chord. Nevertheless it is predicted that a sudden dissapearance of the sun would create gravity waves instead of leaving space time neat and flat. So...there must be some sort of elasticity.

I am far from an expert, just an enthousiast. I could recommend watching some documentaries about Einstein and space time, particularly the BBC ones are qualitative and abundantly available on youtube.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2013
Nevertheless, natello, the hypothetical question remains a valid one.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2013

The Sun can't just disappear; its energy has to go somewhere.


Come on Natello, it's a thought experiment, we all know stars don't suddenly go off to the hookers. Neiter do we have lightspeed trains or semi-dead cats, never stopped the great scientists from using them as a metaphor.

Einstein was actually one that favoured thought experiments and it's often said his GR and SRT were triggered by his fascination about how it would be like to ride a beam of light.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2013
But at the moment, when such experiment violates the (postulates) general relativity by its very definition, then it has no meaning to ask,

The meaning is just "how fast does gravity travel". Conversions of energy/mass to gravity differentials (gravity waves) are part of the current model and are predicted by relativity.
The notion of 'taking away the star' is just taking this effect to the extreme (full conversion of the star's mass to a gravity wave) - it does NOT violate physics.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2013
The speed of gravity in general relativity is the speed of space-time curvature propagation with respect to space-time curvature - i.e. it's undefined.


"c" very strictly defined in SR & GR. It is the invariant quantity that every observer will mutually agree on regardless of reference frame.

I'm thinking that there may a misunderstanding by some here of "c" and where it came from.

It's not just a number which was found to work IN certain equations. It's the number which is PREDICTED by certain equations.

It was discovered to a be a number which fell OUT of certain equations, every time those equations were applied. Maxwell's, Minkowski's and Einstein's being the most well known. It's value shows up in ANY field equation worked for a vacuum environment. It's similar to the natural log "e" or "pi" or any other fundamental & invariant constant.

The value of "c" was first a PREDICTION, which has been subsequently become an experimental OBSERVATION.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
The value of "c" was first a PREDICTION, which has been subsequently become an experimental OBSERVATION
Your view of contemporary physics is heavily deformed with propaganda of contemporary educational system. The constant speed is a postulate in relativity, i.e. the ad-hoced assumption, which is accepted without proof. The speed of light is experimental constant only and it always was. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre. So today the speed of light isn't even experimental constant - it's postulated constant.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2013
Your view of contemporary physics is heavily deformed with propaganda of contemporary educational system. The constant speed is a postulate in relativity, i.e The speed of light is experimental constant only and it always was. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre. So today the speed of light isn't even experimental constant - it's postulated constant.


Zephyr, ya are completely wrong. (Shocking I know, but it's true.) The constant "c" fell out of Maxwell's field equations. He was very surprised to find that it just so happened that his "c" happened to coincide with the previously measured speed of light. That's what lead to speculate that light might be electromagnetic in nature. He found his "c" in 1866-67. Einstein adopted it, not posited it.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2013
Continues:

It is ya that is prejudiced by modern (popular) science reporting. "c" is not defined by the velocity of light, the reverse is true, The speed of light is governed by "c". If we ever determine that a photon has some rest mass, then the speed of light will change, but "c" will remain the same.

The reason we associate zero rest mass with the photon, is because using "c" requires it. "c" is the speed of any particle that has zero mass, photon (the only one we presently have observed) or the graviton which hasn't been observed. Or any other that we find in the future.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
The constant "c" fell out of Maxwell's field equations.
I commented your claim that "The value of "c" was first a PREDICTION". Even the Maxwell's equations cannot predict the value of "c". I'm well aware, that the constant "c" follows from Maxwell's field equations, because they're based on aether model. But the speed of light itself still represents the freely adjustable parameter there.
If we ever determine that a photon has some rest mass, then the speed of light will change, but "c" will remain the same.
So far I presumed, that the "c" denotes the speed of light - or not? If the photon has some rest mass, it just means, it moves slower than the rest of light wave. Which is possible quite easily in dense aether model and it doesn't introduce any causal paradoxes.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2013
I commented your claim that "The value of "c" was first a PREDICTION". Even the Maxwell's equations cannot predict the value of "c".


Maxwell predicted that a "field" propogates at speed "c" because the field has no mass, that it must travel at "c" or it will cease to exist. "c" in "free space" is the only constraint.

I'm well aware, that the constant "c" follows from Maxwell's field equations, because they're based on aether model. But the speed of light itself still represents the freely adjustable parameter there


Regardless of the medium, "c" is "c", we have experimental shown that "c" only exists in "free space", ie, a vacuum. Not aether.

So far I presumed, that the "c" denotes the speed of light - or not?


"or not" is the correct answer.,,,,,, "c" denotes the only speed possible of a massless entity, ie, a field, in free space. (Of which light is only one kind.) At any speed less than "c" IN FREE SPACE, the field disappears, goes out of existence.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
If the photon has some rest mass, it just means, it moves slower than the rest of light wave.


The photo IS the light wave. It can't move slower than itself.

Which is possible quite easily in dense aether model and it doesn't introduce any causal paradoxes.


It is not "possible quite easily" in any model, aether or otherwise in THIS universe. It just doesn't work the way ya think ya are intuiting it. Ya are putting together something which does not reflect reality.
danman5000
5 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
natello/ValeriaT/AWT guy's current alias:
The speed of light is not some arbitrary quantity, as you seem to imply. It can be derived using Maxwell's Equations, and here's a good page that does so: http://cr4.global...of-Light

From this, the speed is related to the vacuum permeability and permittivity, which are constants related to the strength of electromagnetism. See the wiki articles on each for a very good discussion of how the values for these constants were arrived at. The first time this calculation was done, it was very close to the (independantly) measured speed of light at that time. That you can use these constants (which have nothing to do with speeds or, seemingly, light at all) to arrive at the speed of light in a vacuum, is pretty impressive. I remember being stunned the first time we did it ourselves in college physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Conversions of energy/mass to gravity differentials (gravity waves) are part of the current model and are predicted by relativity.
The notion of 'taking away the star' is just taking this effect to the extreme (full conversion of the star's mass to a gravity wave) - it does NOT violate physics.
Gravity waves remove kinetic energy from objects. They do not come from mass conversion. Objects do not lose mass from emitting gravity waves.

"Now strictly speaking, we have only shown that gravitational waves can extract or donate mechanical energy, but not that the waves themselves transmit this energy."

-And neither do electrons lose mass from emitting photons.

"The rest mass of the electron remains unchanged when it emits a photon."

-Am I right or wrong?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Electron do not lose mass during emitting of photons, but the atoms as such do - after all, it was proven experimentally already. The mass released is just hidden inside of 2-spin component of itself. In dense aether model every photon is behaving not only like the wave, but like the slightly more dense blob of vacuum foam as well (i.e. like the particle - Java applet illustrating it). And this dense place of vacuum removes the matter from the atom radiating this photon.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
The photo IS the light wave. It can't move slower than itself.
If it would be a wave, it would be called so - or not? But the wave neither does maintain the particle wave duality, neither does represent quantum of energy, neither remains spatially limited. It's quite different concept than the photon - both physically, both mathematically. In AWT the photons are equivalent the light wave only when they're of wavelength of CMBR radiation - such a photons aren't distinguishable from CMBR background, so that they effectively don't exist at all and their mass is zero. The photons of longer wavelength are of negative mass, they're dispersed with CMBR noise so they do propagate like the tachyons and they're unstable. Actually they do represent a seamless transition to scalar/gravitational waves, i.e. longitudinal waves of the vacuum. The radiowaves do scatter strangely with CMBR field and they should gain both energy (frequency), both intensity during their spreading by AWT symmetry.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
BTW The water ripples at the water surface do behave similarly: when they're of longer wavelength than so-called capillary ripples (which are of the same wavelength, like the CMBR noise), they do attenuate in water way more slowly and their wavelength expands during it instead of collapse. Both the superluminal speed of scalar waves, both their attenuation during spreading was observed with Tesla before many years and replicated later in experiments of Konstantin Meyl and Eric Dolard independently. These guy know perfectly what they're saying and their experiments have mechanical analogy. The aether physics therefore exists a long time already, it's surprisingly rich and complex - but it's solely ignored with mainstream physics.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Objects do not lose mass from emitting gravity waves.
Of course they do - the Nobel prize in 1973 was given for this observation (binary pulsar PSR1913+16). What is losing mass is the binary object as a whole - the area of more dense vacuum between pulsars deformed with motion of both pulsars, being more specific. The individual pulsars are losing their mass rather with their own radiation of X-rays and neutrinos. Only perfectly spherically symmetric objects cannot emit gravity waves.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2013
The aether physics therefore exists a long time already, it's surprisingly rich and complex - but it's solely ignored with mainstream physics.


The heliocentric model of the universe has been around a long time already also. But like the aether model, it's not soley ignored with mainstream physics, it is discussed quite frequently,,,,, but only as an historical novelty. It has no scientific value, only historical reference as an example of how far we have progressed.

By the By: Zephyr, might I ask just one question of ya? If this AWT is such a useful and compelling model, why after a decade or so of ya pushing it ad nausium, have not found one single convert. Are ya the only smart guy out of 7 billions of persons? Not one convert, after years of preaching,,,,, what does that tell ya?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
Of course they do - the Nobel prize in 1973 was given for this observation (binary pulsar PSR1913+16). What is losing mass
Their orbits are decaying. The objects arent losing mass, correct?

Why dont objects such as electrons and protons decay from emitting gravitons? If all matter with mass supposedly does this, where does this energy come from?

And similarly, where does the charge energy of the electron come from? Why doesnt it evaporate? This energy does work by keeping electrons orbiting nuclei. It should have a source other than mass.

You should know this as it is needed to explain how your magnetic motors operate.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
but only as an historical novelty
Dense aether model was proposed first with Oliver Lodge in 1904, but it was never discussed or even opposed with both mainstream relativists, both with classical aetherists. The classical aether was based on the idea of sparse gas pervading not forming space. Many concepts of AWT were recognized with Tesla independently of Lodge, but never replicated with mainstream physics again. Because the mainstream physics is solely oriented to deterministic description mediated with transverse waves, all the scalar wave phenomena (i.e. the dual side of reality) is essentially a taboo, not just dense aether model.
ya the only smart guy out of 7 billions of persons
Of course not, I'm just collecting and connecting insights of many people and providing the thin logical layer above it. These insight do behave like the system of tiny isolated bubbles, which remain essentially separated until someone will not initiate their phase transform.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
why after a decade or so of ya pushing it ad nauseum, have not found one single convert
Because all attempts are expelled from mainstream. We have for example many attempts for cold fusion from the beginning of the last century, but they weren't replicated. For example, Fort and Couder demonstrated the mechanical analogies of many quantum mechanics, they're itself mainstream physicists - but because these analogies point to the aether model, they're essentially ignored as well - nobody uses them in interpretations of quantum mechanics, explanation the less. The existing physicists simply belongs into dual inmiscible phase like the fluid trapped inside of foam. Until that fluid will not become completelly expelled from foam, the foam cannot coalesce. The physicists already feel, they're facing deep shit, if they will delay the recognition of dense aether model - but they cannot help themselves with their ignorance.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
This social attitude is well recognized with social psychology and it's called the pluralistic ignorance, spiral of silence and false consensus. They're all emergent effects independent of stance of individuals and particular examples of so-called groupthink. The social psychology is generally recognized with nerds as the lowest form of science possible - but if the physicists would become familiar with it, they would immediately recognize the depth of shit, in which their thinking resized.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Errata: . in which their thinking resides.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Why don't objects such as electrons and protons decay from emitting gravitons?.

Because they're formed with mutual resonance of transverse and longitudinal waves. Because the vacuum foam gets more dense with shaking, every energy density higher than some critical threshold leads into avalanche like process during which the vacuum foam collapses and it becomes gradually more and more dense, until it will not change into dense blob of vacuum foam, inside of which the waves are reflecting from resulting surface gradient of vacuum density with total reflection mechanism. Such a transverse wave becomes trapped inside of its own scalar (density) wave like the wave inside of resonator and both forms of energy resonate mutually. They're forming standing wave across extra-dimensions, so to say.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Before some time the Mobius strip model of electron did become popular at the alternative forums.This double loop appears like the motion of particles along standing wave composed of mutual resonance of longitudinal (bulk volume) and transverse (surface) waves inside of elastic droplet. We can recognize the larger EM charge loop and the smaller lepton weak charge loop inside of it. This geometry explains the half-integer spin as well (it exposes one half of total vorticity at the electron surface). This model is suprisingly effective when entropic balance is involved and it enables to derive mass and charge of electron easily just from laws of electromagnetism - so you can consider it as an independent confirmation of the electron structure proposed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
This energy does work by keeping electrons orbiting nuclei.
The vacuum is behaving like the superfluid, so you're not required to introduce any energy for keeping the electron in neverending motion. After all, in similar way, like the quantum vortices inside of superfluid don't require any energy for their existence, once they're created. In particular, the vacuum itself is very dynamic system full of quantum fluctuations - so that the energy, which the electron would radiate with its non-inertial motion is continuously refilled from the neighborhood of electron in dynamic mutual equilibrium. The electron will therefore decay only when it would face the sudden serious loss of energy for example with passing through strong gradient of gravity field, which would violate the balance of standing waves inside of electron. It would be the inverse process of materialization of light into electron-pairs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2013
This energy does work by keeping electrons orbiting nuclei.
The vacuum is behaving like the superfluid, so you're not required to introduce etcetcetcetc
Sorry I was hoping for a non-lyrical, unpoetic, legitimate physics explanation. 'There is none' IknowIknow