Light can't , the observers angle is shifted.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Light is redshifted by gravitation so it is redshifted by following a curved path through spacetime.
The difference is that, for gravitational redshift to occur, light must travel from a place with lower gravitational potential to a place with greater. The redshift depends only on the difference in gravitational potential at the source and receiver, not that of other places through which the light travels, nor whether its path is deflected by gravitational lensing or other means.
Your question suggest to me, A-wal, that you’re confusing the curvature of spacetime, which is a property of points on a 3 spacelike + 1 timelike dimensional manifold, with the curvature of a path in 3 dimensional space, of which an example is the path of light deflected by gravitational lensing. These are very different things.
Yes, I'm very confused by this. Gravitational lensing occurs because light moves through spacetime that's length contracted and time dilated. Gravitational lensing occurs because light moves through spacetime that's length contracted and time dilated. There's no lensing in this case because the light is coming from the origin so the time dilation and length contraction are even in all directions so it has no reason to favour a particular direction and all you get is redshift. You could look at as energy being equal in all directions so it cancels out, whereas light origination away from the source of gravitation will have its path curved towards it.
You haven't described a difference, all you've done is stated that they are different. I don't see how gravitational lensing isn't caused by light traveling on a curved path through spacetime. How can it not be? There's no such thing as curved space. Time dilation and length contraction always happen together, you can't have one without the other. How can gravitation cause redshift of light coming from the source of the gravitation but not cause redshift when the light comes in at an angle to the source?
I still don't see how redshift can be finite at a relative velocity of the speed of light but infinite at the event horizon of a black hole, where the object is accelerated to a relative velocity of the speed of light. Both of these seem like blatant examples of shifting the goal posts. How could the fact that light came from somewhere other than the source of gravitation affecting its path cause it to escape the effects of time dilation and length contraction stretching its wavelength and how could the redshift of an object be infinite at a relative velocity of the speed of light but infinite if gravity did the accelerating? Regardless of the method the object used to reach that velocity the amount of time dilation and length contraction at the speed of light has to be the same, infinite!
I uncertain to what you’re referring, A-wal, but I wouldn’t call a model a theory, because they’re very different things.
A scientific model is a way of calculating some measurable feature of physical reality that’s hard or practically impossible to calculate exactly using approaches. For example, there’s no know exact way of calculating in general the position of 3 or more bodies with nonzero mass using Newton’s theory of universal gravity, but it’s easy to calculate them approximately using a model in which you calculate the force on each body, apply it as constant (or changing linearly) for some duration to calculate the bodies’ velocities, then apply the velocities to calculate their position (for example, with my GRAVSIM4 program, which we’ve used for various simple orbital mechanics discussions).
Scientific theories provide ideas that can be used to write models, and models can be used to solve practical problems, but theories and models are different kinds of things.
All theories are models but not all models are theories. General relativity for example is a theory that models gravitation as a curvature of spacetime. It shouldn't be that hard to turn this into an actual theory seeing as most of it is already done. I'd start by showing that curved spacetime and flat spacetime are equivalent by using the Rindler coordinate system to show that special relativity can be described as objects following straight paths in curved spacetime when they accelerate and gravitation can be described as objects following curved paths in flat spacetime and the Rindler coordinate system and Schwarzschild coordinate system are equivalent if you just drop the ridiculous assumption that gravitational acceleration is an inertial frame of reference. I'd model it in a closed four dimensional universe to show that it creates a black hole on the opposite side from the frame of reference of any observer and that the observed galactic redshift is gravitational redshift. And it will be called the what you get if it's done properly theory of relativity!
Newtonian mechanics and Relativity are theories that describes exactly the positions of bodies for a given instance under the influence of gravity and arbitrary well-defined forces, as measured from any reference frame with any possible velocity. They are not models making it easier to calculate these positions, nor are they ad-hoc adjusted to better agree with observations of actual reality.
Newtonian mechanics has been show to not agree with observations, but in most case not so badly that it does not remain a very useful theory. Relativity has not been show to disagree with observations, provided that those observations are of large bodies.
No, it matches 10% of the observations the other 90% is the ad hoc inclusion of never before seen form of matter needed to make the other 10% valid. Some people think that dark matter is evidence that the inverse square model is only an approximation and that this only becomes apparent at large scales. I don't. The strength of gravity is proportional to the volume of space that it fills. In one dimension it wouldn't weaken with distance, in two dimensions it's strength would halve every time the distance is doubled and in three dimensions it's an inverse square. If gravity really does fall off at a lesser rate then in one dimension it would strengthen with distance.
I’m suspicious of Dowdye’s paper, because I suspect he’s a crank with a religious agenda. Here’s what lead me to this suspicion: Comments from Dowdye and reviewers rejecting his article submission to scitizen.com; Dowdye’s website, “Extinction Shift Principle”; Dowde’s scienceinthebible.net “about the author” page.
I hate religion (not spirituality in general) with a passion but I someone's spiritual beliefs have no direct baring on anything they present as scientific. His paper has to be judged purely on its own merit. I'm not saying his paper has any merit but if it does it's extremely interesting and it wouldn't surprise me if evidence that physicists find inconvenient gets swept under the carpet. Besides, it wouldn't make sense for somebody with a Christian ideology agenda to chose this of all things to attempt to refute. General relativity is a foundation of the big bang model which is well and truly a creationist model.
Halton Arp showed that redshift isn't only caused by distance when he showed that some supposedly distant and mega powerful quasars are actually closer and far less energetic by demonstrating repeatedly that quasars are physically connected to host galaxies. This doesn't even disprove the big big model, it's just inconvenient so it gets ignored and denied despite the fact that apparently anyone with a decent telescope can see for themselves that he was right. I should be careful here because I don't know the evidence first hand but I wonder how they'd get the limited attention they have if their evidence or conclusions aren't valid.
I don't trust physicists because the vast majority of them aren't truth seekers, they're partyline towers. I know from my own limited interactions with them that they're deceitful, manipulative, and outright dishonest they can be. I wouldn't put it past them to cover up evidence. The more I have contact with them the more convinced I am that they've just memorised what they know rather than having any actual understanding of it because most of the time they're completely incapable of defending their assumptions but will cling to them regardless of how convincing the refuting evidence is. I can give a dozen reasons why no object can ever fall past an event horizon and none of them have ever been able to refute even a single one.
Mainstream Physics Rules Of Engagement
Okay so you've achieved your objective and proved you can parrot back from memory a bunch of meaningless equations based on illogical and demonstratively false assertions to earn yourself a PHD, but what do you do if an individual with independent thought and critical thinking skills dares to challenge what you've memorised but don't comprehend? After all, they have the advantage of being able to think dynamically in real time and use their minds to actually analyse the subject matter due to the fact that their mind isn't already made up. Fear not, just follow this simple guide and you won't have to worry about it. Remember, you're the one with a PHD (don't forget to keep mentioning this) so your words are right until proven wrong, which won't happen if you just stick to these rules.
Rule 1. Try to never answer direct questions. Instead always misdirect by pointing out something that's related but not actually relevant so as to make it appear that the other person has overlooked something.
Rule 2. Always go on the offensive. Truth isn't half as important as appearances to most people, so make it look like the other person is under pressure and people will tend to assume that you're right. Never under any circumstances allow the other person to establish the offensive position. Be as confrontational as you like because you're the mainstream physicist so they're the one who will get the warnings for being rude, not you.
Rule 3. Always attack personally rather than attacking arguments that you know you can't refute so that you can establish dominance and prevent the other person from gaining credibility.
Rule 4. Make things seem much more complicated than they actually are. Try to create the impression to the readers that the other person lacks a full understanding by expressing the mathematical relationships in purely scientific terms even though plain English would make the same statements just as clear and concise. You can even repeat exactly what the other person said in a more complicated way and it will look like they made a mistake and you corrected them. Use equations from time to time as well. Most people can't follow them so it will make you look clever, even if they're not strictly relevant to the other persons argument.
Rule 5. If all else fails just don't answer. Instead say something like 'Your assertions are based on false assumptions and half understood facts and I don't even want to waist any more of my time trying to teach someone who is on such a low level and has already proved that they're not capable of understanding counterintuitive physics.' Always remember to implant the idea that anything you can't argue is counterintuitive if understood correctly. This will make sure that anyone who starts to question what you're saying will instantly right off their doubts as a misunderstanding.
Follow these very simple rules and always remember to be as condescending as possible and you'll be able to argue your point without actually addressing the other persons objections or engaging in any kind of meaningful debate.