RE: How Gravity Produces Electromagnetism and Redshift per Distance
Yes that is it. We presently say that photons have no mass, but they have an infinitesimal mass which can become larger due to compression (blueshift) or smaller due to stretching (redshift). When we measure light's frequency, we are ultimately measuring its mass, so increase in frequency is due to increase in mass and decrease in frequency is due to decrease in mass. We can't measure mass on such a small scale but we can measure frequency.
Yes when light approaches the body it is blueshifted. In a given loop of a Figure-8, though, lets say that light arbitrarily starts at the center, the beginning of one of the two loops of the Figure-8. It then moves radially outward and back inward to reach the center once more. This radial motion ultimately produces no shift because the two motions--redshift as it travels outward and blueshift as it travels inward--cancel. It is in the orbital motion when the light is always moving at essentially a right angle (which is away from the source of gravity) to go from one side of the loop to the other where the additive redshift occurs so that when the light arrives at the center again it has undergone cumulative redshift with each loop.
I very much appreciate your informative reply.
I actually understood how the cancellation works, but thanks for making it even easier to understand.
Is the change in the mass of a photon with frequency canon in physics, or your innovation? I apologize if I seem to be asking you questions I might easily find elsewhere, but, I spend a lot of time on Steemit, and prefer to discuss it with you, rather than read random links.
Photons are considered to be massless.
To quote the wikipedia, "In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero." This is important because they say it is zero. What this means is that the claim is that there is no room for error. If it is 10^-50 g, or 10^-50000 g, it is still not zero; there comes a point in our ability to accurately measure a particle's mass where we are no longer able to. So instead of it being interpreted as having an extremely small mass, so close to zero that we cannot detect it, it has become actually stated to be zero mass.
It isn't really anything new to say that photons have a mass, but the standard models state that they do not. This is easily refuted with simple examples: if they had no mass, they would not gravitationally lens. Light has energy and E=mc^2. But the standard model is held as fact so it is difficult to get past such barriers.
In my model photons are no different than anything else, particles can be infinitely large relative to atoms or infinitely small. Sufficiently small particles are what we call "photons", which their variances in mass is what makes up the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The smaller the particles in mass, the lower the energy, the lower the frequency. X-ray light is composed of higher mass particles than radio wave light.
Here's another Steemit article I wrote on the topic, Photons Do Have a Mass.
IIRC it was Einstein himself that ascribed to photons mass, as they are impacted by gravity, and cannot exceed the speed of light.
Odd, that. As they do not either decrease below the speed of light (in a vacuum). Also, having mass they should not be able to travel the speed of light.
Photons are weird!
While I accept there are differences between matter and energy, it is also true that they are both aspects of something else, as they can be interchanged, again as Einstein proved.
So, I accept that photons do have somemass, and violate the laws of physics by traveling at the speed of light, and as best I can understand from your answer, physicists accept this is true because light is affected by gravity, which can only affect mass - but, they do not ascribe to photons a sufficient mass to be measurable, and indeed, we have no device with which we can calculate the mass of a photon, so while they accept that photons do have mass, they state that it is '0' mass.
"The speed of light" is very similar to the zero mass concept. I like to call it "the limit of motion of matter." No mass truly travels at that rate, but rather light is so small in mass that it is perceivable as traveling at essentially the limit of motion of matter to such a degree that we have actually labeled this limit to be "the speed of light".
As far as acceptance of photon mass, zero mass is akin to saying no mass; there is a fine line between zero and "perceived to be zero", but that fine line is completely disregarded or unconsidered in science which leads to photons being interpreted drastically differently from particles that are said to have a mass.
Also, regarding the "speed of light", when a vacuum is involved, it is much the same issue: even if it approaches a vacuum, it is impossible to truly be an absolute vacuum (such as absolute zero Kelvin) as there are infinite layers of smaller and smaller particles that will still make up the space. It is possible that under much greater vacuum conditions than we can create particles can travel in ways not fully understood (in other words, infinite speed rather than what we consider the speed of light), though that is something I don't have much else to say about, just a thought I come back to here and there.
Also, when there are infinite smaller layers considered, if we could zoom in on the lowest energy photon we could ever detect and its surroundings, it would be like looking at the observable universe. Those particles radiate in the same way as the stars and planets radiate, and their radiation may be so small that we simply are completely unaware of it. But we would see these "stars" as traveling at what we call "the speed of light", when the particles they emit would be traveling much faster just like the light coming from our stars relative to the stars' motion. If we keep going down further and further into this structure, perhaps again it is possible for particles to travel at what we may consider "infinite velocity" but they are so small that they are undetected completely. Just some extrapolations I like to ponder.