Excellent question.

The best answer will not be found by measuring luminal speed, which has never been found to deviate from 'c' but by measuring photonic energy as defined by the luminal frequency. Thus the effect of gravity on light may be measured by observing the red shift all the way down to the microwave background level of almost zero photonic energy.

As far as light can be described in terms of light rays -- null curves in spacetime regarded as spatio-temporal paths of photons, there will be a tangent vector to these paths - the wave vector - ant it will be null, and so the associated speed as measured locally by any time-like observer will be the universal 'c'. In this sense there is no influence of the gravitational potential on the propagation speed of photons - the local null-cone structure of space-time is unaffected by the gravitational field. This conclusion concerning light is true at least in the high frequency approximation (geometric optics) or when the concept of photons as excitations of flat wavefronts of quantum electrodynamics make sense. However, the real problem would arise in 'low' frequency regime when the associated wave-length is comparable with the curvature radius or larger and when the usual Fourier decomposition of the electromagnetic field to extended flat wave fronts as done in textbooks on quantum electrodynamics cannot be applied. One can imagine also a situation in which electromagnetic radiation is so intense that it cannot be discarded in the stress tensor - the source of the gravitational field - and when additional nonlinearities would inevitably enter to the game. How the very concept of photon and the propagation speed would be modified then?

Hi Zbigniew

The relative intra- and inter-galactic movements of each star or cluster makes red-shift calculations and measurements very difficult to interpret. What we 'see' must be extrapolated backwards many millions of years in the case of some galaxies and mere years in others.

I am not aware of any postulations that the 'universe sphere' balances off gravity fields in the same way that a charged metal sphere balances off electrical fields so that there is a zero net effect.

While it makes sense that this should be so if we had a contiguous (gravitationally connected stars) boundary to the universe, neither the big bang nor the stationary universe theories ever postulated this.

I would expect to be able to measure huge gravity shifts as stars move their position relative to our sun and see appropriate changes in the observed wavelengths.

However, the reality is that our astrophysical measurement tools and techniques are still in their infancy - so I think most of our theories are still in the guessing stage.

"In this sense there is no influence of the gravitational potential on the propagation speed of photons"

Dear Lukasz,

may I draw your attention to a parallel discussion linked below, in particular, to recent contributions related to a 1911 paper by Albert Einstein.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

Ian Proffitt: "I think most of our theories are still in the guessing stage."

I fully agree !

Dear Johan,

As far as aether can be seen as the accumulation of the fields from the whole universe, the divergence (or not) of the gravity waves are indeed not relevant, only the local amplitude of the fields.

Indeed, the speed of light can be seen as c = sqrt((E/V)/(m/V)) with E/V the elasticity and m/V the density of aether.

If either changes, the speed of light changes.

However, one is not ready/able to measure that (yet).

I struggle a little with any argument that any definition of the gravity field in the universe in any way corresponds to an electrostatic sphere where the gravitational field is generally constant and balanced across its internal space.

Apologies for the list format - I tend to think that simplified way.

Ian

"However, one is not ready/able to measure that (yet)."

Dear Thierry,

good idea to look for aether properties in analogy to corresponding material properties! Anyway, I think properties of aether should be adequately investigated preferably by means of "dynamic probes", in particular, accelerating masses as suggested by Mach and Keith, or via determination of local speed of light. In current discussions local variation of c is sometimes denied in favour of geometrical considerations in view of GR even though Einstein in his 1911 paper came to the conclusion that c should be dependent on local gravitational potential. Therefore, I still suggest measuring the local speed of light at some closer distance from Sun, say at the L2 Lagrange point of Mercury, and compare with local c as measured on Earth.

"In effect the 1/r^2 rule means that gravity is restricted in its reach."

Dear Ian,

please note that we are talking here on local effects due to long-range 1/R type gravitational field potential rather than short-range 1/R2 type field gradients.

JKF

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Prof. Chiba's work, I had not read it previously.

Before I study it and some of the surrounding work in greater detail please allow me a comment on the basics of why we must explore this field.

Newton's theory of gravity was a binary theory. Gravity in his definition relied on the interaction between two (or more ) objects. Work could be done and energy could be transformed by gravity moving both objects relative to each other.

The corollaries from the Newtonian standpoint are that

• Gravity does not exist unless there are at least two objects in the system. E.G. A planet circling a sun or an apple falling to earth. They interact and expend energy as they come together.
• Gravity has unlimited range. As long as there are two objects anywhere in a universe, there will be gravitic attraction between them, no matter how feeble.
• Gravitons, similar to photons, are the prime actors in gravity. Something needs to carry the energy that is transformed.

Einstein's view declares that gravity is a unary phenomenon. A mass such as a sun warps space (and time?) in such a way that objects, such as a planet, which just happen to pass by are diverted by this warped space so that they continuously fall into and around the local space-time. This view supposes that neither object expends or changes energy in any way during an interaction.

The equivalent corollaries from the Einstein theory are;

• Gravity exists as an interaction between mass and space (and possibly time). There is no interaction or force between objects and no energy is transformed as objects come together.
• Gravity has a rather limited range. Space is simply bent in a rather localised environment and searching for an interstellar field is futile
• There is no need of gravitons for any reason as energy is not expended or tranformed at any time.

After a quick read of Prof Chiba's work it seems to be a search for Newtonian gravity force within the context of an Einsteinian framework. Taking and reviewing various guesses as to the extent and magnitude of that force is the prime driver.

I guess I in for an interesting read in the next few days.

"Prof. Chiba's work"

Dear Ian,

thanks for your kind response. Please let us know which work of Prof. Chiba's you refer to.

1/R Gravity and Scalar Tensor Gravity: Takeshi Chiba:Physics letters B Vol 575(1-2)

It is on researchgate as a paper - unfortunately i cannot post a link to it.

Dear Johan,

You wrote: "please note that we are talking here on local effects due to long-range 1/R type gravitational field potential rather than short-range 1/R2 type field gradients."

I think this is exactly the same. For the one, we speak of energy, and for the other, we speak of forces.

Now, the law of work (energy) is dW = F ds , or F = dW/ds. That is why forces are 1/R2 and energy is of 1/R type. Both are the same thing, expressed differently, and working even at a rather long range.

"Both are the same thing, expressed differently, and working even at a rather long range."

Dear Thierry,

I imagine static gravitational forces due to dependence on potential gradients to be preferably short-ranged, while effects due to long-range, virtually gradient-free potential should preferably - or even exclusively - be observed on "dynamic" probes (Mach, Einstein, Hulse-Taylor, Keith).

Dear Johan,

I see, but in that case, you must not call that "potential". A "potential" is only a potential if it is divergent. Otherwise it is impotent. If all the lines of force are parallel, as they come from almost infinity, they don't act.

Moreover, there is another issue: Compare it with the centre of the Earth: in the center, you are weightless. However, you are pulled at all directions at once. The potential is zero, but the content of gravitons is huge.

So, you will need forces instead of potentials, since forces are vectors and potentials aren't.

You will need to find a different name as well. I would call it "the aether 2.0", and define it as the local content of gravitons, as a superposition of the gravitons from all the masses in the universe.

In a sense, the aether is the superposition of all the absolute forces in a given point.

So, the sum of all the absolute forces should rather be:

Faether = Sum || Fi ||

And the energetic value of the local gravitons: dP = Sum (|| Fi || ds) for a given displacement ds.

In order to be complete, one should include the time factor from the beginning of the ages and also the time delay caused by the speed of light for each of the considered masses.

In terms of fields, the energy content would be (Oleg Jefimenko):

P = - Sum ( gi2 + c2 Bg,i2 ) /(8 π G) in which g is the gravitational acceleration, and Bg is the magnetic-like field due to the motions and rotations.

A "potential" is only a potential if it is divergent. Otherwise it is impotent.

Quite an obvious way to look at it! On the other hand, and in analogy to the definition of gravitational potential around some massive object, couldn't we imagine cumulative local potential originating from remote masses as the energy required for pulling a test mass from our location to infinity, i.e. to outside our - apparently finite - universe?

TDM

'A "potential is only a potential if it is divergent'

This may be nit picking in the context of the debate - but a potential is differential not divergent.

Divergent potential is the structure of a field.

Dear Johan,

" local potential originating from remote masses as the energy required for pulling a test mass from our location to infinity"

Yes, that is for one local mass, but weren't you looking for the total, Mach-like content of aether, as gravitons, or expressed in total energy, which then would account for the local speed of light, due to the local properties of that medium?

"which then would account for the local speed of light, due to the local properties of that medium?"

Dear Thierry,

in his earlier mentioned 1911 paper Einstein describes light bending at the sun's edge as due to local reduction of luminal speed by enhanced local gravitational potential in analogy to light bending in an optical medium with refractive index of about 1.000001 = 1 + 10-6. As local gravitational potential of the sun near the edge is about 10-6 times the cumulative gravitational potential due to remote masses of the universe, I imagine the latter potential might be responsible for refractive index 1 and associated limiting speed c.

Dear Johan,

Don't forget that the Shapiro delay is just a consequence of a metric that was fabricated to correspond to the Newton limit and for the 'double' bending of light. The metric is proven wrong by the Gravity Probe B experiment, which confirms gravitomagnetism as the correct metric for gravity. Hence, the veracity of such a small effect as the consequence of GRT is very doubtfull.

Moreover, the Shapiro delay could not be detected in a reliable way, since it needed the interpretation of 25 parameters, and Shapiro was his own judge for the paper that was barely detailed.

So, the millionth part was probably just another coup of the GRT believers.

"So, the millionth part was probably just another coup of the GRT believers."

Dear Thierry,

to my knowledge the millionth part simply results from the sun's gravitational surface potential, GMsun/Rsun ~ 2*1011 J/kg, divided by respective data from universe, GMuniverse/Runiverse ~ c2 ~ 1017 m2/s2. The latter relation already by itself expresses dependence of c on gravitational data of the universe.

Dear Johan,

Interesting! How do you come to the figure?

"How do you come to the figure?"

Dear Thierry,

I'm not quite sure which ones you're asking about. I started from rounded figures G = 7x10-11 m3/kg/s2, Msun = 2x1030 kg, Rsun = 7x108 m, and (GM/Rc2)universe ~ 1.

Dear Johan,

Thank you. In my annexed paper, I calculated the consequences of the circulating light about our part of universe, as detected by the Karlsson peaks, where he discovered that the same distribution of quasars came back 5 times with the same interval, measured in redshift. It means that the same distribution of quasars in space is seen with 5 different levels of redshift.

The calculus leads to eq (2.9) in which the part of the universe 'inside' the radius where we live, relates to 2GM/(Rc²)=1.

We can say that if the universe is a sphere, the part outside our radius doesn't play any role in any additional potential (Effect of zero gravity inside a shell).

Would this relationship comply with your findings?

Research The Karlsson Peaks in the Quasar's Redshift Distribution as ...

Dear Thierry,

thanks for drawing our attention to the rather intriguing ideas displayed in your earlier papers. In view of your deep insight and experience in the field I won't be able to comment in an adequate manner. I'm happy though to see that your well established findings apparently comply with the above relation (GM/Rc2) ~ 1 expressing quite a tight relation between luminal speed and remote masses of the universe. While I still tend to the assumption of an infinite universe I would agree that our horizon, i.e. the apparent edge of our universe, is determined by limited reach of field interaction. This, in fact, would imply that our location is always at the center of our universe.

Dear Johan,

I think there is a contradiction (at least a paradox) in saying that the universe is infinite and that there is an apparent edge of our universe. Even an error by saying that we are in the center.

If light is circling our part of the universe (and since the masses in the universe are huge, that is well possible, as I (a.o.) have calculated it) it is difficult to suppose that light can be circling in different directions at once. It there is more or less only one direction of light circling, the mass must be confined visually, but also physically within the circling light. We must belong at the edge of that confined mass, where the light circles.

It doesn't exclude universes elsewhere, though.

Concerning my calculus of 2GM/(Rc²)=1 , please be aware that the values of M and R are not the same as the mainstream ones, even if they are also based upon the Hubble constant.

Due to the light circling, 5 times about our part of the universe, the estimated radius until our place from the universe's center, where we belong, is 30 times smaller than the mainstream's (a factor of 5 x 2 x π) and the mass is about half the mainstream's until our place.

But still, the factor G/c² can then be expressed as dependent from the universe's M and R.

However, there is another puzzle. The sun's dynamics appear to define the value of G, as explained in the annexed paper.

For the sun, the rotation frequence f equals empirically to GM/(cR²).

Wunderbar! There is a new link found, but it is however local, related to the sun! Even the sun's differential rotation complies with the calculus and the logic of this empirical physics!

Hence, isn't it a bit dangerous to consider G and c constant all over our universe? It is puzzling!

Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...

"I think there is a contradiction (at least a paradox) in saying that the universe is infinite and that there is an apparent edge of our universe."

Dear Thierry,

when standing at an elevated location and viewing the landscape I can see up to the horizon and yet I'm aware that this is only an apparent edge.

"If light is circling our part of the universe"

when assuming gravitational potential from remote masses to be essentially flat there would be little reason for light to circle in a way you conclude from repetitive appearance of remote quasars. The latter phenomenon is quite a challanging one. Isn't there an alternative explanation available of the quasar phenomenon?

"But still, the factor G/c² can then be expressed as dependent from the universe's M and R."

This is essentially what I'm trying to point out with my initial question.

"For the sun, the rotation frequence f equals empirically to GM/(cR²). Wunderbar! There is a new link found, but it is however local, ..."

Quite an interesting result, indeed, though apparently with little relation to remote masses and possible effects on global “aether“ properties.

Dear Johan,

Edge of our universe; horizon of the Earth.

The Earth's horizon is a real egde, not an apparent one. It is the highest point of Earth at a specific place, defined by the combination of the observer's position and the Earth's curvature.

There is no such edge of the universe seen, because in that case, the redshift would have no upper limit.

It is precisely the upper limit or the redshift (in the interpretation of the expanding universe, as well as in the interpretation of the Karlsson peaks with circling light) that accounts for a confined (part) of the universe.

Circling light: Alternative explanation available of the quasar phenomenon?

The Karsson peaks give a very precise, global distribution that is repetitive 5 times with exactly the same distance between each of them. Hence, we are looking into the past with a repetitive image, in a static (part of the) universe. I never found another explanation at all to that.

The factor G/c² can then be expressed as dependent from the universe's M and R.

Yes, indeed, but we extrapolate the values of the universe's M and R in terms of an universally constant G/c² , while assuming a certain number of things from a theory. So, nothing is really reliable.

As I have shown with my example at the center of the Earth, the classical potential is not reliable in order to know the content of gravitons.

The equation you use is only valid at the surface of a sphere with an uniform density distribution (The surface is the place where we live), under the condition that all the matter beyond our position can be expressed as a perfect spherical shell (In that case, its influence is zero). That is Newton's law and that is the only way to use that equation.

It is anyway not applicable for an infinite universe with a constant density.

The circling light on the other hand guarantees quite well that these Newtonian conditions are met for the present case.

For the sun, the rotation frequency f equals empirically to GM/(cR²).

The consequence is that if we express the empirical result for other similar stars as the sun, we may expect different values for G.

Hence, G is not universal at all, and maybe c isn't either.

So, the only good way to exert the right next step in science will be to measure c and G elsewhere than close to the Earth. Therefore, however, the right clock should be used, and atomic clocks are electromagnetic devices that are sensible to both the speed of light and to electromagnetic influences...

"It is precisely the upper limit or the redshift (in the interpretation of the expanding universe, as well as in the interpretation of the Karlsson peaks with circling light) that accounts for a confined (part) of the universe."

Dear Thierry,

I'm still not shure about the confinement: is it a "bodily" or just a "visual" one?

"The Karsson peaks ... I never found another explanation at all to that."

Please have a look at the "Redshift in Quasars and Galaxies" chapter on pages 154-155 of annexed paper.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/7182

Dear Johan,

The high redshift of quasars as companions of galaxies with a much lower redshift is indeed what Halton Arp correctly observed.

Quasars are the accumulation of ejected matter from the galaxy's black hole(s) at a certain distance from the galaxy, south and north. It forms huge balls of hot gas.

The high redshift of quasars is due to the many collisions of the light with matter (maybe hydrogen molecules), according to Lyndon Ashmore's recoil hypothesis causing tired light.

That recoil phenomenon also explains very well the cosmological redshift.

The circling light about our part of the universe is an additional phenomenon, distance-related, in addition to the recoil losses.

"The circling light about our part of the universe is an additional phenomenon, distance-related, in addition to the recoil losses."

Dear Thierry,

as I understand the figure and related text on page 155 of Jouko Rautio's paper he explains repetitive appearances of quasars at z = 2; 1; 0.6; 0.3 (the same z-values that you refer to) by repetitive ejection of quasars from a host galaxy, i.e., not in addition but instead of circulating light propagation.

Dear Johan,

I didn't find back the z-values you refer to on page 155.

However, these z-factors are redshifts of large groups of quasars.

The observed values are : 3.46, 2.63, 1.96, 1.41, 0.96, 0.60, 0.30 and 0.06.

The distance between the groups, as expressed by the eq(2.5) gives the constant distance 'delta d ' as being directly proportional to delta ' ln(1+z) '.

The values that are found are entirely empirical and they give a quasi perfect constant distance between the quasar groups, as shown in the table.

This can only be explained when we consider the circling of light about (our part of) the universe. Repetitive ejection from a host galaxy can never give such a perfect fit.

"I didn't find back the z-values you refer to on page 155"

Dear Thierry,

five out of eight z-values from above table can be found in the figure on page 155, so the author presumably refers to similar sources as you do. Even though repeatability of delta ln(1+z) appears quite obvious I still have trouble to follow the circling light theory and associated implications. When searching alternative explanations for the Karlsson peaks I became aware of a recent paper by Jacques Moret-Bailly, see reference below. I understand that periodic appearances like the ones analyzed by Karlsson et al. might be related to selective radiation interference with intergalactic hydrogen. What do you think about the idea described there?

P.S. (March 7, 2018)

I just found some recent work by Lyndon Ashmore on the "tired light" explanation of cosmological redshift and background radiation, see reference below. Similar to the above cited Moret-Bailly approach to interpretation of quasar spectra, Ashmore takes into account specific interaction of light with intergalactic particles. Strange only that Hubble and Big Bang philosophy obviously rely on perfect "clear sky" conditions.

Book Tired Light an explanation of redshifts in a static universe

Dear Johan,

The paper "Absorption spectrum of very low pressure atomic hydrogen." of Jacques Moret-Bailly is an excellent one.

Thank you very much for mentioning it.

My ln(1+z) periodicity is confirmed and totally fits Ashmore' mechanism as a replacement of the expansion of the universe.

The paper shows the difficulties in interpreting the Lyman forests, and I have good hope that it will contribute to further research in that direction.

It could confirm Halton Arp's observations with quasars as well, if it is shown that redshift is connected to hydrogen recoil.

"The paper "Absorption spectrum of very low pressure atomic hydrogen." of Jacques Moret-Bailly is an excellent one."

Dear Thierry,

I got it from Wiki, see below, along with a whole bunch of valuable references. It is my hope that the new James Webb Space Telescope will free us from the Big Bang trap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

Dear Johan,

It is easy, and suppose that you know it very well, to show that in the case of a spherically symmetric mass distribution ,by using a spherical on Gaussian surface that the field strength at a distance r from the center is inward with a magnitude of G/r2 times only the total mass within a smaller distance than r. All the mass at a greater distance than r from the center can be ignored.

Dear Daniel,

Yes, you are right. Consider a given spherical mass M of radius < r. All the masses m of spherical shells that are concentric with it, but which have a radius > r can be disregarded when calculating the gravity at the radius r.

Since energy is equivalent to mass, didn't you give an excellent falsification of the alleged "Dark energy"…?

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

The problem is that the Dark Matter is just an hypothesis for explaining accelerations and that is more difficult than to generalize the Gauss law. But for me this hypothesis of the Dark Matter is not well justified physically and perhaps serious studies on this direction could help to understand the gravitation better. Einstein's General Relativity is a local theory which doesn't take into account the non local effects as the different distributions of mass at large scale.

Dear Daniel,

You mention a number of things.

It is quite incredible that the simple observation of redshift has lead to the idea of an expanding universe, and even to the monotheistic idea of a big bang.

Even more incredible is that journals refuse to consider the publication of any paper that doesn't support this, and neither accept any observational interpretation that doesn't support it.

Apparently, still in the year 2018, there is enough money and there are enough lobbies to promote the Torah and the Bible.

In contrast to it, reasonable interpretations like Halton Arp's and Karlsson's are just dismissed. They conclude in the physical cohabitation of quasars and galaxies, spites their very different redshifts, and they lead to a (more) static universe, geometrically as a whole.

In nowadays science, it is shoking that the increasing redshift for distant systems didn't made ringing a bell to the scientists, telling them how absurd it is to invoke Dark Energy (I assume you meant that).

The same is true for the invention of Dark Matter for galaxies. It includes, again, the lobby of Einstein's science of gravity, while instead, the sole awareness that spinning masses make gravitational dipoles that create fields to the surroundings, solves it.

Indeed, the velocity-dependent gravity fields create, just as with electromagnetism, the possibility to induce by Maxwell's-like equations and by the Lorentz-like force, other moving masses.

It is found that, likely, numerous black holes of fast spinning stars are populating the bulge of our galaxy, and cause a global gravitational angular momentum that polarized the disc.

These forces stabilize the whole galaxy by a north-south pressure of the disc.

However, that was not found by the General Relativity Theory, only imitated by Thirring and Kerr, but without understanding the physical process.

You see, there are quite a number of issues to be resolved, of which the first is the mentality of universities and journals, which should resist to religion and nationalism.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees