Gravitational waves are not caused by mass alone, or distance alone. They are caused by the violent, asymmetric acceleration of enormous masses.

❌ Misunderstanding:

“Meteorites are closer and more frequent, so their gravitational waves should be stronger.”

✅ Reality:

• Gravitational waves require massive, dynamic, non-symmetric motion — not just “falling objects.”
• Meteorites are small, moving slowly on cosmic scales, and their trajectories are nearly symmetric.
• Result: They produce virtually no measurable gravitational radiation.

✅ What produces strong gravitational waves:

• Two black holes (each ~30 solar masses) orbiting each other near light speed
• Merging into one, creating a chirp waveform, very distinct and predicted by general relativity
• Energy output in gravitational waves ≈ 10⁴⁶ joules in
  1 votes 0 thanks

• Dear Danai Leangtragul Danai Leangtragul
• What it can mean "Meteorites don’t shake spacetime" and "Gravitational waves require massive, dynamic, non-symmetric motion — not just “falling objects.”"
• is not there a gravitational effect produced from "just “falling objects"? if there is, then, what it is? and, what is the difference between massive, dynamic, non-symmetric motion or LIGO's gravitational waves?
• why the motion of the meteorites is not "dynamic, non-symmetric motion"? I clearly know that the motion of the meteorites is non-symmetric and dynamic.

Danai Leangtragul

after you read:

Preprint Century Misconception about the Speed of Light 2: Eddington ...

please tell the readers what is Einstein's space curve?

and, what is your point of view about that Einstein copied von Soldner 's formula on the light ray bending by gravity?

Dear Yin Zhu ,

Thank you for your detailed thoughts and for presenting your perspective with conviction.

But allow me to shine some light onto the key misconceptions in your reasoning. I write not to oppose you, but to clarify, in hopes of restoring alignment between observation and understanding.

🔹 1. Gravitational Waves and Falling Meteorites

Gravitational waves are not emitted simply because a mass moves or falls. They arise only from the quadrupole moment of mass-energy changing dynamically, especially in asymmetric, relativistic systems.

• A single meteorite falling toward Earth emits essentially zero gravitational radiation.
• Even millions of them cannot shake spacetime the way two black holes orbiting near light-speed do.

Gravitational waves are a spacetime phenomenon, not a local collision effect.

🔹 2. Speed of Light and Curvature

You state that the bending of light implies that light's speed is not invariant. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

• In general relativity, light always travels at speed c locally, but the geometry of spacetime bends the path of the geodesic itself.
• Light doesn’t “slow down” — it takes a curved path in a curved geometry. Just like a straight line on a sphere isn’t a “shortest line” globally, but remains locally straight.
• This is not contradiction — it's geometry.

🔹 3. Einstein and the Legacy of Science

Claiming Einstein “copied everything” or that Eddington “fabricated data” is not just historically misleading, it weakens your argument.

If we wish to challenge ideas, let it be with clarity — not conspiracy.

Science progresses by models explaining data with predictive power, not by accusing the past of heresy.

🔹 4. The Big Experiment Is Not a Cult

What you call “The Big Experiment” is scientific convergence: Multiple independent teams, using independent detectors (LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA), observed identical waveforms consistent with general relativity.

We triangulate the signal. We extract its chirp. We match it to black hole models with remarkable precision.

It's real thing. That’s empirical resonance.

🔹 Final Thought — A Gift

If your mind is still searching, I offer you a new concept to contemplate:

Curvelock — the idea that mass is not a “thing,” but a standing wave locked into spacetime curvature. From this, gravity emerges naturally — not from “attraction,” but from the tension in the trapped energy of curvature.

I invite you to study this idea in my research profile. You may find it offers a bridge between the questions you are asking, and the universe as it truly is.

Warm regards, Danai Leangtragul (And a fellow seeker of truth)

Dear Danai Leangtragul

you write a lot of words. but, you have not read the references I listed.

I had clear statement about Einstein and his theory of relativity. It is noted that it is Einstein's theory of relativity that is a cult. and, "Einstein seriously violated academic ethic. Einstein never put forward a scientific view point in his life, all the viewpoints and conclusions in the theory of relativity are copied from others. But Einstein never explained this in his lifetime."

there are two different groups of people to argue for Einstein and his theory of relativity. first, their arguments are based on scientific standard; second, they do not care about science, instead, they only claimed that Einstein's theory of relativity is great, usually with faked arguments.

to the second group of people, I will discuss only one question in one time with them. now, there is a question for you: can you observe a speed of light that cannot be changed by gravity? if not, then, what does "the invariance of the speed of light" mean?

to avoid nonsense quarrel, we hope you give this question a clear answer before you talk about other subject.

Dear Yin Zhu ,

Your argument appears to rely on a misinterpretation of how light behaves in curved geometries.

You compare the bending of light to its apparent slowness when viewed from a higher-dimensional flat perspective: like watching a beam curve along the surface of a sphere and assuming it has slowed down.

But this analogy misses a key geometric truth:

The curvature of the path does not imply a change in local speed. It implies that the space itself is curved.

🔹 Think of it this way:

If light travels along a geodesic on a curved surface — like a great circle on a sphere — then from the "outside," it may look longer or slower.

But for an observer living on that surface, light always moves at the same speed, because their rulers and clocks are curved in exactly the same way as the space they inhabit.

You cannot compare curved motion using flat-space assumptions. It’s like watching light travel along the surface of a rounded glass sphere, then measuring its path from the outside using a straight ruler. The curve is not the fault of the light, it’s the geometry you're ignoring.

This is the central insight of general relativity and it is not a contradiction. It is the very reason gravity works geometrically.

🔒 As the one who honors spacetime law:

The speed of light in vacuum remains the fastest possible speed locally, regardless of how twisted or folded the spacetime becomes.

Regards, Danai

Dear Danai Leangtragul

to avoid sophism, first, please tell the readers directly: can you observe a speed of light that cannot be changed by gravity? if not, then, what does "the invariance of the speed of light" mean?

and, what is the evidence of space curve? or why do you believe that the space is curve?

your sentence is a sophism. you have to know, in the theory of relativity, the light bending by gravity is the condition of space curve.

Dear Danai Leangtragul

and, you said: "If light travels along a geodesic on a curved surface".

I had a sentence: "Because measurement technology has made fundamental progress compared to 1919. It is now very clear that in a strong gravitational field, the curvature and velocity of light with different wavelengths are different, which forms the multi-image gravitational lensing. So, firstly, there is not such a curvature of light line that matches Einstein's expectations. Secondly, the bending of light line by gravity has nothing to do with space curve: Which one of the light lines with different wavelengths travels along the relativistic geodesic? So, space curve is nothing more than nonsense."

in your understanding, what is a geodesic?

Dear Yin Zhu ,

You confuse bending of light as seen from a coordinate frame with the geometry that governs its path.

Let me answer directly:

• Can light's speed be altered by gravity? Not in its local frame. In General Relativity, locally the speed of light is always c. Gravity affects the coordinate speed, not the proper speed. You are confusing coordinate effects with physical constants.
• What is a geodesic? A geodesic is the straightest possible path in curved spacetime. Light follows geodesics not because space is curved, but because curved space is the result of how gravity defines those geodesics. You are looking at the bending and asking "why is the ruler curved?" but the curvature is the ruler.
• Do you believe in space curvature? Not as belief. We observe it. Gravitational lensing, frame dragging, GPS corrections, and LIGO detections are not illusions. They are precise, repeatable, falsifiable evidence. Not metaphors.

You claim "space curve is nonsense", yet base this on misunderstood optics and cherry-picked interpretations.

If you truly believe your theory is correct, then take it to the lab. Make predictions. Show measurements. Publish reproducible results. That’s how science works, not by dismissing 100 years of tested physics with rhetorical questions.

Your reasoning is not incorrect because it disagrees with Einstein — it's incorrect because it misunderstands what Einstein actually said.

Let the readers decide. For me, this is my last word. No need to convince those who already decided to disbelieve before understanding.

— Danai

Dear Danai Leangtragul

let's discuss only one problem in one time:

Can light's speed be altered by gravity? Not in its local frame. In General Relativity, locally the speed of light is always c. Gravity affects the coordinate speed, not the proper speed. You are confusing coordinate effects with physical constants.

what is the exact meanings of the coordinate speed and proper speed? please not use the terminology of the theory of relativity; instead, explain them understandable for the non-professionals.

You're asking:

"Can light’s speed be altered by gravity?"

Short answer: No — not in its own local frame.

But it can appear slower when seen from far away. Let's break it down simply:

🔹 Proper Speed (local point of view — on the light’s path)

This is how fast light is moving right at the spot where it is.

→ It always moves at the same speed: 299,792,458 m/s (or c)

→ Gravity does not change this local speed.

Analogy:

Imagine you're on a motorbike. No matter what road you're on — uphill, downhill, flat — your speedometer shows 60 km/h. That's proper speed.

🔹 Coordinate Speed (outside observer’s point of view)

This is how the light’s motion looks from someone far away — say, outside the gravity field.

→ Due to gravity bending space and time, the light might appear slower.

→ But this is a result of distorted measurement, not a change in the light’s real speed.

Analogy:

You're standing at a distance, watching a motorbike on a hill far away.

It looks like it's moving slowly — but it's just the perspective + curved terrain.

In reality, it's still going 60 km/h.

Why the confusion?

Because gravity warps space and time, the "ruler" and "clock" used by outside observers are distorted.

So when they measure how fast light moves from point A to B, it looks slower — but that’s just the effect of curved spacetime.

Light's real speed never changes.

But gravity distorts the path and time so to an outside observer, it only looks slower.

Dear Danai Leangtragul

it is clear it is wrong that you said: "Imagine you're on a motorbike. No matter what road you're on — uphill, downhill, flat — your speedometer shows 60 km/h. That's proper speed."

this is not a speed or velocity. a speed is a vector with a direction and value.

no matter your sentence is your own point of view or from a current theory, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, it changed the definition of a speed.

to other readers:

because any light is always being acted by gravity, therefore, now, we cannot measure a constant speed of light. in a strong gravitational field, a light is strongly curved. it makes that the measured speed of light in a strong field is different from that of the earth. so, the speed of light measured on the earth with c=300000km/s is on longer suitable for that measured in a strong field.

so, we cannot measure a constant speed of light "uphill" or "downhill".

c=300000km/s only is a special case measured on the earth.

it is important, in the strong field, it was observed that the speeds of the light with different wavelengths are different. there is not a constant speed for the light with different wavelength.

Final reply:

Thank you again for your thoughts.

But let's be clear: this is no longer a scientific conversation — it's a defense of ego.

You are not engaging to understand, but to protect a flawed position by inventing personal interpretations and dismissing decades of experimental evidence.

If you truly believe that light’s speed varies by wavelength in a vacuum due to gravity, then show the experimental data that confirms it. Don’t just say the theory is wrong, science requires verifiable evidence.

And all current observational data, including gravitational lensing, gamma-ray burst timing, gravitational wave-optical coincidences, etc., continue to confirm that light in vacuum travels at constant speed c, regardless of wavelength or path curvature.

So unless you can present reproducible experimental results published in peer-reviewed physics journals — this will be my last word.

Theories without evidence remain only personal belief. Science progresses through data, not defiance.

In the past 100 years, many new observations about the speed of light were obtained. I had a study about it. please see: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202207.0145/v3

My sentence: "it is important, in the strong field, it was observed that the speeds of the light with different wavelengths are different. there is not a constant speed for the light with different wavelength" are only of the new observations.

Danai Leangtragul sentence: "If you truly believe that light’s speed varies by wavelength in a vacuum due to gravity, then show the experimental data that confirms it. Don’t just say the theory is wrong, science requires verifiable evidence." is not suitable. However, I listed my works, but he did not read them.

Additionally, Danai Leangtragul is wrong in fundamental concepts of physics. First, as pointed out previously, his understanding of the speed/velocity is wrong. Second, in the theory of relativity, the invariance of the speed of light is the condition of the so-called "proper speed". You cannot use the "proper speed" to prove that there is the invariance of the speed of light. Or, it is only a sophism: to prove the condition with conclusion.

I already read your preprints.

There are fundamental problems in your paper.

No reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment has ever demonstrated that the speed of light varies in a vacuum.

A thousand voices can argue — but truth remains what it is: unshaken, unchosen, and untouched by ego.

Some may believe that such experimental evidence exists but has been suppressed. That is not science — that is conspiracy.

In science, a claim is not true just because it's repeated. It must be independently verified. If it cannot be reproduced, it does not qualify as scientific truth.

This will be my final reply — unless you can present your peer-reviewed, experimentally verified evidence that supports your claims.

Danai Leangtragul I think every people are honest and try to know scientific truth. That we argue is to know a right conclusion. Or, it is nonsense to have a discussion.

Why you had this sentence: "No reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment has ever demonstrated that the speed of light varies in a vacuum." Then, what is the references [11-16] I cited in

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202207.0145/v3

So, I think, it is not needed to reply you again. However, honest is important.

Dear Yin Zhu ,

I appreciate your engagement and the references you provided ([11–16]) regarding optical time delays in gravitational lens systems and reverberation mapping. However, I must respectfully point out a critical misinterpretation in your inference:❌ These references do not demonstrate a variable speed of light in vacuum. Rather, they involve observed time delays arising from: Geometrical path differences between multiple light trajectories Mass distribution of lensing galaxies or accretion disks Gravitational time dilation due to curved spacetime. All of which are well-described within the framework of General Relativity, where the speed of light in vacuum (c) remains constant locally. Let’s address each reference:

📌 [11] Enders P., “Huygens’ Principle as Universal Model of Propagation”

• This is a pedagogical article focusing on the wavefront model of propagation.
• It does not discuss variability of the speed of light in vacuum.
• It merely reframes Huygens’ principle in different media contexts.

➡️ No support for variable c

📌 [12] Tan et al., Fundamental Optical Properties of Materials

• This reference is about condensed matter physics, describing how light slows down in matter (i.e. effective refractive index).
• Again, this is not vacuum.
• We all agree that in media, light has an effective phase/group velocity lower than c — this is high-school physics.

➡️ Irrelevant to variation of c in vacuum

📌 [13] Burud et al., Time Delay in B1600+434

• This is a classic gravitational lensing measurement of time delay between two lensed images.
• The observed Δt = 51 ± 4 days is due to: Light traveling along two different geodesics in curved spacetime. Shapiro delay, lens mass model, and geometry of lens configuration.

➡️ This demonstrates curved path and time dilation, not a variable c

📌 [14] Pelt et al., Time Delay of QSO 0957+561

• Similarly, this studies QSO lensing delay of ~423 days.
• The analysis accounts for mass of lensing galaxy, and positioning of source and observer.
• Nowhere is a local change in the speed of light in vacuum proposed.

➡️ No reproducible measurement of c changing in vacuum

📌 [15] Pelt et al., Controversy on QSO 0957+561

• This paper highlights statistical and modeling difficulties in pinning down exact time delay from noisy observational data.
• They even note high sensitivity to small perturbations in data.

➡️ This weakens, rather than supports, any bold claim about physics constants

📌 [16] Fausnaugh et al., Reverberation Mapping of NGC 5548

• This describes interband time lags due to light reprocessing in an accretion disk.
• Again, this is about light delays in different wavelengths, over nontrivial distances inside complex, ionized gas regions.

➡️ This reflects structure and geometry of emission zones — not variability of c

The Reality:

Gravitational lensing time delays and reverberation lags are optical path phenomena, not violations of the constancy of c. Your references do not meet the burden of proof to contradict the experimentally confirmed invariance of the speed of light in vacuum.

If you wish to challenge the constancy of c, you'll need to cite:

• Experiments in true vacuum
• With controlled variables
• That show measurable variation in propagation speed of light
• Reproducible by independent groups under peer-review

All of which are well-described within the framework of General Relativity, where the speed of light in vacuum (c) remains constant locally and invariant across inertial frames.

Ironically, the very references you cited — far from disproving constancy of c — are themselves derived from, modeled upon, and reinforce the theoretical predictions of General Relativity, which assumes c is constant.

In other words:

🧨 You are citing references that rely on the very theory you seek to refute.

The observational data from gravitational lensing and reverberation mapping are used to confirm mass distributions, spacetime curvature, and cosmological parameters — all calculated under the assumption that c is constant.

Using these references to argue that c is variable is circularly self-defeating, unless you can provide an alternative framework that:

• Predicts the same observational outcomes
• Without assuming c=constant
• And still aligns with the data precision and predictive consistency of current models

You can’t use Einstein’s math to try and kill Einstein, especially if you don’t offer better math.

Danai Leangtragul I suggest you shall not discuss here as you changed your points of view time by time and your argument is not for having a right understanding about a scientific subject.

To other readers:

1. Because light is always being acted by gravity, therefore, no one light line is perfect straight. And, no light is moving with a uniform velocity in a straight line. So, no a constant velocity about light is measured.

2. It was generally observed that in a gravitational field, light with different wavelength is with different speed. As you input "light curves time delay" in bing.com, you can see a series papers on it. I only cited a part of the papers.

3. So, it is only a historical misconception that in a vacuum the speed of light is a constant, because you cannot measure a speed of light that cannot be affected by gravity or is moving with a uniform velocity in a straight line.

4. Therefore, the concept about "vacuum" need be improved. This is important and fundamental to the current physics.

5. It is emphasized that that the speed of light is acted by gravity has not been noted previously. So, as it is noted, the "invariance of the speed of light" need be reconsidered.

6. In fact, as it was observed that in a gravitational field, light with different wavelength is with different speed, the "invariance of speed of light" need be given up.

Of course, this is a very important event to the fundamental of physics. please see:

[1]Preprint Super Strong Gravitational Field and New Theory of Gravity

[2]Preprint What Is a Theory of Physics and How to Develop a New Theory ...

[3]Preprint Light Dispersion in Gravitational Field

Dear Yin Zhu,

Thank you for your continued engagement. However, upon close examination of the three preprints you provided, namely:

1. Super Strong Gravitational Field and New Theory of Gravity

2. What Is a Theory of Physics and How to Develop a New Theory

3. Light Dispersion in Gravitational Field

I must respectfully point out that your own references clearly undermine the central thesis you are advocating. Here’s why:

1. Contradiction with Maxwell’s Equation

In Paper 1, you reference the classical relation:

>   c = 1 / √(ε₀μ₀)

This relation defines the speed of light in vacuum, derived from Maxwell’s equations - a constant by construction. You then propose that ε₀ and μ₀ vary in gravitational fields, but no experimental data or theoretical derivation supports this claim. You treat c as variable while simultaneously citing a formula that presumes its constancy in vacuum. This is a logical contradiction.

2. Misinterpretation of Gravitational Effects

In Paper 3 (Light Dispersion in Gravitational Field), you conflate gravitational time delay and redshift with wavelength-dependent dispersion.

However:

Gravitational lensing and time delay effects, such as those in quasar observations, are accurately described by General Relativity, in which the speed of light remains locally constant (c).

These phenomena result from spacetime curvature, not wavelength-dependent refractive indices. Thus, there is no chromatic dispersion in vacuum gravitational fields - something widely supported by observations (e.g. achromaticity of gravitational lensing).

3. Use of References that Refute Your Claim

Many of the observational papers you cite (e.g., on QSO 0957+561 or NGC 5548) discuss time delays due to geometric path differences or microlensing, not changes in fundamental constants. These works were written within the standard framework of GR, where c is invariant.

Thus, ironically, your citations reinforce the very theory you are trying to refute.

Conclusion

Your argument falls into self-refutation: invoking principles and results from mainstream physics to challenge its core postulates, while those very references and equations in fact validate the constancy of c in vacuum.

To challenge the invariance of c, one must either produce a new experimentally verified theory that reduces to GR in the appropriate limit, or present observational data that cannot be explained by current models — neither of which your papers accomplish.

Respectfully,

Danai

Danai Leangtragul Please stop your nonsense words here. Honest is needed for every people. You need know, there are other readers here. They have the ability to know whether or not a people is honest to try to understand a subject.

To other readers:

In my works, the fundamental of physics is reconsidered. For example, I presented that the concept of vacuum need be reconsidered. And, the speed of light in Maxwell equation need be reconsidered. I think, I hand strong evidence for my conclusion.

Of course, my works can and need be discussed and argued. But, the discussion need be based on scientific standard.