Light is photons and photons have mass. The variation over 24 hours is like a tidal effect. So, is there a smaller 12 hour effect.

If light energy (wavelength) has an effect on mass, mass should have an effect on light - change its wavelength. This could be another version of the galactic redshift, periodic redshift, Pioneer Anomaly as the STOE suggests.

Can you refer to an experiment proving light had mass? For now I presume light has no mass. The concept of mass has to be clearly define because there is no cocensus yet

There's that word "prove" again. Experiments only reject.

The STOE model of photons uses a photon with mass in a toy simulation which reproduces several interference experiments which reject the wave nature of light as well as reproducing the usual single slit and double slit experiments.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference?_sg=D_aseTTVtU6-OwNIzf4-78hL0AvV-8BKyHnYTtYXLxH0v_Mp9XWOyogq3lO7uB6yrtx0-VE80d7v21yYYOY983M8Qw6fo-yl0Yqd

Further, the bending of light around suns and galaxies can be taken as supporting the light has mass concept.

Interesting way of finding extremely low forces.

I have no idea how you would assure that the masses are truly freely moving in any experimental setup I can imagine.

But maybe this paper can help you.

Preprint The gravitation of photons

"Can you refer to an experiment proving light had mass".

Leaving aside things like the Compton effect, how about photopressure? Inertial Confinement Fusion compression of targets by lasers is just that. Pressure means force, e.g. change of momentum which requires mass.

But do you really need experiments? If you accept that photons have energy hf, then

this energy is (by Einstein's formula) mc^2, hence m=hf/c^2.

Elcromagnetic theory shows that EM waves exert radiation pressure. Pressure is force/area. Force is also equal to rate of change of momentum. Momentum is product of mass and velocity. Light is EM waves hence it has mass.

A photon has no "mass" but a beam of photons has energy. Energy is a source of gravitation according to General Relativity.

Weight is reaction of the object on surrounding gravitational field. In fact, the object absorbs this field. Another object also absorbs this field, therefore the density of gravitational energy divides between two objects.

Dear Sydney ~

I'm not saying I "believe" electromagnetism is a source of gravity I'm saying that according to Einstein's gravitational field equations energy and momentum are the source of spacetime curvature, that spacetime curvature is gravity and that according to electromagnetic theory an electromagnetic field has an energy-momentum tensor.

The gravitational constant G is a constant; it is not "influenced" by anything (unless one is suggesting an alternative theory such as that of Brans and Dicke − or that of Chungpin Hovering Liao, which I'm not familiar with).

You can refer to this E book for your clarification

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qIs_AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

The intersection of electromagnetic wavefronts weaves an infinitely complex patchwork of spatial curvature which casts an everchanging gravitational shadow that is easily mistaken as a force of its own. Gravity is the expression of this everchanging curvature as defined by the magnitude of the wavefronts passing through a particular location that an observer perceives from somewhere outside a gravitational well.

Depending on the intensity of the well and an observer's distance from its center will determine what we characterize as the speed of gravity. If you make an observation of the apex from the apex of a well, gravity will not exist and consequently would appear to have a zero velocity (adjusted for the travel time of light to affect the observation). If an observation of an object was made just outside the theoretical event horizon of a black hole, assuming the observer's distance remained constant with respect to the horizon, in other words, the observer was not falling toward the hole, gravity near the horizon would appear to be traveling close to the speed of light. What we depict as the speed of gravity is simply how the degree of warpage of spatial curvature affects the velocity of light used to make an observation.

"Conclusion: the origin of the force of gravity is still a theoretical mess."

Yes, and just thinking about it can produce the feeling of like being lost inside a Rubix cube.

Physics revised.

Note: A text that Sydney Ernest Grimm added on Research Gate made me realize that present physics theories are not able to explain what I found ten years ago. Many have tried to explain the effect but none are valid enough. Here is an extract of his text.

The question of Louis Rancourt is about shielding the force of gravity by a sheet of light. And to understand the measurements we have to know for sure the origin of the force of gravity. By the way, this is not the first time Louis Rancourt tries to interest others in the discrepancy between the theories of gravitation and these experiments....

But there are no serious answers.

If we want to surpass this confusing question we have to analyse the meaning of the experiments of Louis Rancourt and Philip Tattersall.

I will try to give a logical explanation for the fact observed.

Suppose gravity coming from below a test mass is conterbalance by gravity coming from space directed downward. The difference between those two produces a force of 9.8 Newton per kilogram of matter directed down.

We suppose this gravity is caused by ultimate entities from all directions in space.

Since it is shown that an intense light beam passing horizontally over a test mass changes its weight, that effect means the light beam did change something in the movement of entities from space above the mass. (1,2,3,4)

Entities from above interacting with the mass are perturbed by the hotizontal light beam entities. Since less space entities are interacting downward, the weight decreases. Entities coming from below the object have a lower density because of the shielding effect when they pass through earth.

The biggest impediment in actual physics is to consider objects in abstraction of the effect on these objects by entities that move in all directions in space around it.

A similar error would be made if an airplane was considered simply as an object moving in space without taking account of the effect of air pressure on the wings.

For macroscopic slow moving objects, these entities have little effect on objects. But on atomic level, what is filling space always interact with atoms and can change the position of atoms in space. This change of position is called acceleration because it seems to be a force pushing on the atoms. The concept of force is correct for macroscopic object when that object changes its speed or its direction or both.

Since a gamma ray can revert to an electron-positron pair and since an electron interacting with a positron reverts to gamma rays, it is possible that the entities responsible for the electron are the same as in a gamma ray.

At atomic level, interactions with these entities cause a reconstitution of the atomic system at a new position in space as if the atom was pushed. Instead of calling that effect a force on the atom, it should simply be called an interaction of entities from space with entities of the system called an atom.

The ultimate entities:

What are these ultimate entities? Many experimental results suggest that the smallest material entities would be something like this;

- They are not made of something smaller; they have no dimension.

- They need to have an interacting zone having a 3-d dimension to be able to interact wth other entities.

- Since they have no dimension, they cease to exist as soon as they start to exist; they have to be maintained in existence continually.

- They seem to move at speed of light for an observer because they are recreated in space a little farther from their former position in absolute space.

These ultimate entities cannot have spin or charge or mass or energy. These are properties of systems made of myriad entities.

A similar effect is seen when two parallel electron beams in a vacuum tube are moving one toward the other. The entities from space between the two beams are moving in all directions and entities from space on each side of the electron beams are also moving in all directions. But more entities between the two beams are moving in the direction of the electrons. That difference is enough to have interactions of entities on each side of the two beams to move the electron beams closer to one another. That effect is at 90 degrees compared to the movement of the electrons. In actual physics, it is called a magnetic effect. It is caused indirectly by the flow of electrons but it is a direct effect of entities from space interacting on the flow of electrons. That also explains why two parallel conductors are moving closer depending on the amount of electrons and the distance in between.

That effect of space entities has been observed also for what was called the pinching effect of an electron beam or even on a lightning bolt. It is also easily observed in the rays in a ‘plasma ball’ leaving the middle sphere and going toward the glass envelope. The blue light emitted by the gas shows that pinching effect.

The effect of entities from space was observed in 2006 when laser was producing larger light beams.(5) Dust particle were pushed toward the inside of the laser beam and that was a problem. Scientists thought the light was giving an electric charge to the dust particle and electrostatic forces were responsible for that effect. Now we know that the effect was caused by the interaction of entities from space on the dust particle. The light beam itself was diverting some entities going down on the dust particle moving under the beam. Entities coming upward were now more numerous and were causing the dust particle to move toward the middle of the beam. In the middle of the beam, the entities density interacting on the dust particle was equal from each side.

When studying electrons orbiting the atom, it is important to also consider all the interactions of entities from outside and not only entities emitted by the nucleus. The shielding effect of the nucleus causes a kind of low density bubble around the nucleus. The electrons are interacting with both entities coming from outside and those coming from the nucleus and are constantly moving toward equilibrium.

The same effect can be seen in our solar system where entities from space going toward the planet are partially shielded by the sun. When the density of entities from the sun is added to entities from space, there is a ‘gravity well’ around the sun. Depending on the mass and the speed of the planet, the planet is always interacting with all incoming entities and moves in an obit where equilibrium is maintained.

The Power Point presentation in Prague in October 2019 helps visualize this effect. (6)

Appendix

1. Effect of light on gravitational attraction

November 2011 Physics Essays 24(4):557-DOI: 10.4006/1.3653936

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258546838_Effect_of_light_on_gravitational_attraction

2. Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation, Louis Rancourt, Philip J. Tattersall, Applied Physics Research ( 2015)

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/48836

3. Light-Enhanced Gravitational Constant G, Hovering Liao, January ,2014

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260021798_Light-Enhanced_Gravitational_Constant_G

4. Libor Neumann, Experimental verification of electromagnetic-gravity effect: Weighing light and heat (2017)

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1559-4-libor-neumann-experimental-verification-of-electromagnetic-gravity-effect-weighing-light-and-heat.html

5. Lasers Attract Dust to Cavity Mirrors

https://www.rp-photonics.com/spotlight_2006_10_22.html

Author: Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta, RP Photonics Consulting GmbH

6. https://science21.cz/conference/?p=869

Sydney Ernest Grimm, you wrote, "Einstein himself had admitted that curved spacetime isn’t the fabric of our universe. There is an underlying reality that creates observable reality, inclusive curved spacetime (he called it “some kind of an aether”).

I'm not speaking about curved spacetime; I'm referring to curved space. There's a significant difference. I would concur partially in that curved, warped, compressed/expanded space is frequently referred to as the aether.

Einstein vacillated continually as to the existence of the aether and what he thought it was. Not only did his perspective of the concept go through a process of unending change, but his support and interpretation were likely modified to concur with changing perspectives of other physicists as well as the political aspects of physics. It seems that the topic of the aether has and continues to remain somewhat of a hot-button topic. Thanks for the transcription.

"In other words, if we merge general relativity and the properties of the electromagnetic field to understand curved spacetime we are creating another undetermined concept."

I never referred to GR. What I have said is that the density of electromagnetic fields are synonymous with spatial curvature, and the dynamics of the transformation process is what we characterize as gravity. In other words, again, gravity is not a force unto itself, but a reflection of the outcome of spatial curvature.

Louis Rancourt, I don't think the apparatus would act as a gravitational blocking mechanism as was suggested. Speculatively, I would say it is just the opposite, light might be enhancing the gravitational field above the test mass and exerting an upward pull.

The spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the light would essentially become warped, inwardly in this case, and the curvature transformation would be superimposed on the already existing curvature of the Earth's gravitational field, creating in a sense a small depression within an already existing one.

Essentially, the light would be generating a very small gravitational field of its own, counteracting the Earth's field, and causing the scale to indicate a lesser mass.

One would expect a square wave pattern when you cycled power, and a deviation from this are likely attributed to unknown variables. Several could possibly be due to heat, changes in voltage and current due to applied load in the lights themselves, changes in wiring characteristics due to increased heat/load, and changes in load due to usage of the system in other locations. The list goes on.

dear Charles

When light is going horizontally, it has zero effect perpendicular to its movement, according to vectors law. Unless you change these laws by giving experimental evidence. Light did block partially entities coming from above.

Louis

Sydney Ernest Grimm, though I appreciate your thoughts and consideration, I again want to clarify that while I've developed some hypothetical constructs, I am in no way attempting to mimic, modify, or otherwise reformulate the equations or predictions of General Relativity Theory (GRT). Not only would I not consider myself as having a high level of expertise relating to GRT, but the fact is that I don't even hold gravity as a legitimate primary force.

Admittedly, when we see an apple fall, it's difficult not to mechanically label the phenomena as it accelerates along its path of descent as 'gravity' because we're so used to observing the act that the naming process has become second nature. That's what we've been taught.

Yet, the dynamics of what we've been accustomed to call gravity, from my perspective, are simply the aggregation of photonic energy at a particular location and the accompanying divergent process. It is the ongoing dynamic process of warpage, of the continuing flow of energy required to enable space to remain in a curved state, and can be observed by the effects upon simple wave energy, and wave energy condensate (matter) that get caught up within this ongoing process.

Matter is the increase within a three-dimensional domain of wavefronts. The degree of curvature dictates the variation of spatial density, and consequently, a type of condensate that appears as spatial gridlines increasingly compress. We define these highly compressed regions as subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules and on the far end of the spectrum entities such as stars and galaxies and holes.

Note these constructs are simply working hypotheses, visualizations, without yet the fabrication of a mathematical scaffolding.

You wrote, "Summarized: your description suggests that the force of gravitation is the result of the electromagnetic adaption on the existence of matter in vacuum space."

Yes, in a rough sense. Somehow we're returning to the concept of the aether, which is an infinitely complex media, though not necessarily equivalently massive at any particular location. The magnitude of the mass at a defined location depends upon the amalgam of amplitudes of each individual front (subsection of a spherical shell) traversing the defined space, which in essence is synonymous with the flatness of its individual curve. In other words, proximity to the source matters.

I think those who beleive that curve space time is a physical reality and not a concept will never be able to unite facts to weird concepts invented in the last century. It is easy to invent new concepts detached from reality but it does not help to understand matter. I prefer to start with proven observations instead of magic.

Louis Rancourt, I provided you with a simple explanation for your experimental results and you call it magic. It may well be, but the fact remains that your experiment provides direct confirmation of my hypothesis. When the mass is located beneath the light, the weight decreases, and when the mass is above the light, the weight increases.

It does not matter whether you think the light is propagating horizontally with respect to your test mass or otherwise. You are taking energy out of the power grid, transforming it at roughly 10% efficiency, the balance being heat. It appears you used compact fluorescents to control the heat. Anyway, you are projecting energy above and below a test mass. And, in doing so, you are curving, warping space, and this curvature complements the already existing curvature due to energy from the mass of the Earth - and of course, to a lesser degree from the sun and the planets, and to a far lesser degree - the rest of the cosmos.

So, when your mass is under the light, the energy from the light to a small degree contacts space, and this process of contraction causes the mass to gravitate toward the light (weigh less). You are not blocking what you take to be gravity; you are complementing it. Likewise, in the opposite configuration, the reverse occurs.

So, I guess I should thank you for your experiment and the results it produced being that it provides direct confirmation for spatial curvature.

Sydney Ernest Grimm, you wrote,

" ...too large to propose that only the electromagnetic field is responsible for the observed effects we call gravitation."

If not the electromagnetic field, what other field or force would be responsible for gravitation, or from my perspective, spatial curvature?

"... velocity of the spacecrafts didn’t increase or decrease by the arrival of different densities/wavefronts ..."

That's because in domains of greater density, by the nature of being of greater density, the gridlines (3D matrix) compress, in other words, from a perspective of an outside observer, one at a location outside the curved region under observation, while it appears an object might be accelerating or decelerating, it is actually crossing greater or lesser amounts of space. For instance, experiments have shown that when approaching Earth, light traversing the increasingly intense gravitational field appears to slow, yet this is a misnomer because the gridlines are compressed in regions of heightened curvature, so even though to an outside observer the velocity of the light might appear to slow, it is actually traversing a greater volume of space.

"The use of a sheet of light shows that the influence of gravitation on an object can be shielded."

With all due respect to Louis Rancourt and Philip Tattersall, their experiment shows no such thing, and I'm curious as to why you would even entertain such a proposal. The results clearly show that concentrated light, electromagnetic energy, compresses space, or if you prefer, generates a gravitational field, albeit small, of its own, which complements the already-existing curvature (or gravitational field) primarily of the earth, sun, and moon. When light is above the mass (with respect to the earth), the weight of the test mass decreases. And when below, the opposite effect occurs. There is absolutely no shielding per se.

dear Charles

Your explanation suppose that space can be curved by mass or energy. But if space by itself is not a physical reality, but only a useful math concept, then one has to look for other explanation.

Your drawing does not represent how the experiment was made. See the illustration in the 2nd paper.

It might help also to look at my presentation in Prague, eith an open mind..

Louis.

Louis, when you say your 2nd paper, are you referring to the Online Published: May 31, 2015 titled, "Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation"?

Also, please reply or message me the 'Prague Presentation' link you want me to have a look at.

Dear Charles

I include a text written to explain a possible new look at the results observed in over 1000 hours of experimenting with light and gravity. Maybe I am wrong and maybe there are jewels of new insights there.

At the bottom of the page, the link to the Prague presentation is also given.

You also can text me directly at [email protected]

Have a nice weekend

Louis

Gary, sadly Google Chrome on my end is not allowing me to open your file:

Physics revised, 2020 july_14.doc

Could you please convert it to a .PDF file and resend it?

Thanks,

Charles

Thanks, Sydney

Louis Rancourt, I read and reread your text and have several comments...

"We suppose this gravity is caused by ultimate entities from all directions in space."

Yes, of course, this is true, yet overwhelmingly the cause for gravity (for us) is due to the mass of the earth and the energy accumulation associated with that mass.

"Since it is shown that an intense light beam passing horizontally over a test mass changes its weight, that effect means the light beam did change something in the movement of entities from space above the mass."

I disagree with several concepts within that statement. You seem to think that a horizontal light beam has significance. From what I can see from your diagram, you use non-coherent light as your source, and though you channel it, it is still an aggregation of electromagnetic wave energy. And this cloud of energy does not affect 'movement of entities' from above any more than below, just the opposite really since the primary source of the gravitational effect is from below.

Essentially, the accumulation of energy/mass in your apparatus is creating its own very small gravitational field, which is sandwiched in between the gravitational effects from both above and below. When your test mass is below this newly introduced field, it mitigates the downward pull toward the earth, which in turn causes your weighing apparatus to show your test mass as possessing lesser mass. And when your test mass is above the light cloud, the cloud adds to the mass of your test mass because it enhances the already existing gravitational pull of the earth, and your test apparatus indicates greater mass. This explanation is similar to what I expressed previously and appears obvious.

For supporting material you go on to speak about force pushing on atoms, gamma rays, electron beams, lightning bolts, plasma balls, dust particles, and the gravity well around the sun, all of which have nothing to do with your original premise that "... the light beam did change something in the movement of entities from space above the mass." - which I see as being erroneous. From my point of view, you seem to be grabbing at straws in an attempt to support a defective hypothesis.

hi Charles

Thanks for your note. You seem to beleive in a mysterious electromagnetic wave energy. Since light travels in vacuum containing no medium to support a wave, you have to explain this mysterious wave that travels without a medium, please.

Regards, Louid

hi Sydney

Please explain what yoi mean by a pure vector field. Is it a concept or a physical reality? If it is real, what makes that field.

regards

Louis

Louis Rancourt, you wrote...

"Since light travels in vacuum containing no medium to support a wave ..."

Our difference in interpretations of the vacuum is obvious. Another way of looking at the vacuum is the aether, and as Einstein said,

"space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether ... space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time ..."

I'm not an Einstein devotee, though his interpretation of space, the vacuum, or the aether, however you want to frame it, has some relation to how I perceive the vacuum, as you refer to it.

I see what we term as the aether as an enormously dense fluid-like media composed of electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, a vehicle that acts as the transport media for the propagation of light, visible light being a very small segment of the overall range. To be more specific, I visualize the process of radiating energy to occur three-dimensionally, meaning that from the source of origin, a photon, a single iteration of a shell, radiates at c in the form of a three-dimensional shell diminishing at an inverse-squared relationship to its point of origin, though the overall energy of the radiating outbound shell remains the same regardless of the distance it has traveled from its source.

I also, contrary to generally accepted science, see this three-dimensional photonic wave as having mass. In other words, the momentum it possesses as it travels through the aether (of which it is but a part) displaces the aether fractionally as it moves along its path and this displacement can be construed as relating to mass.

The rest mass of the photon has been studied by numerous scientists and a rich and long documented history of calculating the rest mass of the photon exists in physics, with many physicists having calculated the rest mass of the photon by a variety of methods. The upper limits of the proposed rest mass of the photon vary between 10-54 and 10-40 g.

'The Mass of the Photon' by Liang-Cheng Tu, Jun Luo and George T Gillies.

includes a lot of detailed information, data, comparison charts and an exhaustive list of references is available here on Researchgate at:

Article The mass of the photon

Also, another comprehensive paper detailing the rest mass of the photon by Alfred Scharff Goldhaber (Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY Stony Brook, NY) and Michael Martin Nieto (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM) titled 'Photon and Graviton Mass Limits' (2009) can be found at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.311.6662&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hi Charles July 19

Your text:

I see what we term as the aether as an enormously dense fluid-like media composed of electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, a vehicle that acts as the transport media for the propagation of light, visible light being a very small segment of the overall range. To be more specific, I visualize the process of radiating energy to occur three-dimensionally, meaning that from the source of origin, a photon, a single iteration of a shell, radiates at c in the form of a three-dimensional shell diminishing at an inverse-squared relationship to its point of origin, though the overall energy of the radiating outbound shell remains the same regardless of the distance it has traveled from its source.

To understand one another, it is important to describe how we see light and space. There is lots of what you describe in my own view.

Using an electron charged rod and a sensitive cmos chip as a detector, I was able to vibrate the rod and the detector perceives that frequency. For each movement back and fro, you perceive that as a single photon (a single iteration of a shell, radiates at c ). Since it is easy to move a neutral pencil in between the source and the sensor, it is observed that the sensor does not sense the source when the pencil is in direct line in between. My interpretation is that something real is emitted by the source at speed c, not a photon but some entities by millions. They seem to travel in strait line and in a pattern like your description: (in the form of a three-dimensional shell diminishing at an inverse-squared relationship to its point of origin). When the source is vibrating, the density of these entities varies at the same frequency. Since the emission is radial from the source, the intensity as a whole diminishes as the square of the distance travelled.

When the antenna of the sensor receives these entities, it takes many ‘layers’ to excite the electrons of the antenna by sympathetic resonance. When there are not enough layers, the resonance is not enough to excite the electrons of the antenna and no signal is perceived. That is why I see a photon as the minimum layers arriving on a sensor to excite electrons enough to give a signal. The photon is not a particle and not a wave but a vast amount of (three-dimensional shell)s arriving on a sensor.

The concept of ether resembles your idea but with some differences. (the aether as an enormously dense fluid-like media composed of electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, a vehicle that acts as the transport media for the propagation of light) .Space seems to contain all these entities having frequency that are called ‘electro magnetic waves’. But these entities called light can revert to become a complex system called electron positron pair. And this pair can revert to gamma rays. That indicates the entities making light are the same as those making electrons and atoms. Electrons having frequency are emitting those entities at a certain frequency. The nucleus does not have a frequency like the electrons and the emissions of entities from the nucleus are not perceive as having frequency at a short distance from the atom. These entities without frequency would be what makes the gravitational effect when they interact with matter.

Since mass is always measured in reality by comparing to a standard, I think mass is a property of complex systems made of myriad entities. Mass then would not be a property of these entities when travelling at speed c in space.

These notions are close to what you described with a twist. Please give me your thoughts on that.

Louis

Sydney Ernest Grimm, first I wanted to thank you for the descriptions of your ideas that you shared and for the links that you listed. I followed them and also viewed the youtube video you suggested. Also, I read a couple of your papers and can see the follow-through in the replies you prepared for me. And I have to say, we're both engineers and we've spent a fair amount of time studying these concepts of space and time and curvature and the aether, etc., and it's as though we're dwelling in alternate realities.

I annotated your replies to me, and other than a couple of areas of agreement related to the correspondence of the electric and magnetic fields we deviate in the way we hold ideas in almost every way. I find this almost comical, and I'm not saying this with malice or that you are even wrong. It's just striking that we've arrived at such different conclusions. But, I guess, that's what makes life interesting.

Anyway, as I see things, here are a few basic concepts related to space and matter...

First, my concept of space is that it's a living entity teeming with energy with enormous numbers of wavefronts traversing the smallest of volumes.

Curvature, the variation of densities of EM wavefronts (including light), is the rule rather than the exception.

Gravity is not a primary force, but a function of the average density of variations of EM wavefronts of any defined volume.

The speed of light is always c in the IRF, but at all other locations it's velocity can be higher or lower depending upon the divergence of wave densities across a defined spatial region.

Though space is homogenous and isotropic across large distances, across smaller domains it is curved in direct proportion to wave density at a given location.

Areas of greater EM density causes space to contract when observed from a location outside the denser region, and in regions of lower density, space expands when viewed from a region of higher density.

When light flows into regions of higher density, it exceeds c and enters what I term an adjacent realm.

All matter is by degree precipitate of wave density, from subatomic particles to atoms, to molecules, to planets, to stars, to galaxies, to holes, to bangs.

Sydney and Louis...

While the paper referenced below does not exactly encapsulate some of the ideas I expressed, in which light produces a gravitational field of its own, it certainly presents some parallels, and I quote from the paper,

"In this paper we calculate and discuss the gravitational field from a single photon or, to be more precise, the field of a point particle with zero rest mass moving with the velocity of light."

Article The gravitational field of a massless particle

or

• DOI:
• 10.1007/BF00758149

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Another way of doing the "wave" is with a value of 2 on the high side and a value of 0 zero on the low side. I also consider the "force of gravity" as a push force (the divergence of a ether/plenum density. However, at less than atomic radius distances, there is no "gravity" sources.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

What is a reference for the Rancourt, Tatersall experiment?

Sounds complex. The STOE (my model) suggests the force of gravity and the EM forces have the same source - GUT model.

hi John

The reference to the paper is given at the end of the question, at the top, here.

Louis

I concur with Sydney Ernest Grimm , the electric field permeates everything, one could say that our entire world is totally inside the electric field.

The first critical eye opener for me was when I realised that ground potential lies in between the electron and the proton, which at first seems a little counter intuitive. In Sydney's image of the electron above you can image ground potential being somewhere in the area shaded grey.

The second eureka moment for me was when I realised that the electric field is absolute and limited, nothing in our world does or can exist at a higher potential than the surface of a proton. In my paper I have assigned the constant "ø" to describe absolute potential (930 million volts)

It then became obvious that this absolute potential limit worked in ways very similar to the speed of light "c" and in fact I was able to show how they are related.

Now if we arbitrarily assign the number 1 to both c and ø we find that the following expression is true.

∆v = ∆U = ∆t

Where v is velocity, U is potential and t is time.

Who needs a metric SI system when nature gave us units like this?

Ref;

Research Ground Potential Theory

Light has a little quantum mass, hence gravity of light decreases the weight of the object

Preprint How quantum of the mass, k box, and photon make light and matter?

according to this theory lights with more frequency ( energy) could decrease more weight of the below particle. ( I didn't check it)

I have read somewhere a theory that universe is expanding. That includes the fabric of space. Since atoms have a fabric of space within, then the matter expands at rates that depends on mass of matter. Therefore, the gravitation is the manifestation of pushing force of matter with gravitational values proportional to the their masses. For example, bigger mass means stronger gravity. Earth is not attracting me but it is pushing me. If I am falling to earth, that means that earth's expansion is approaching me. Since I am made of matter too, I am expanding as well. Everything is relative (I am falling), but proportions (our sizes) remains the same. Now, regarding the light, this is interesting and new. Your experiment might suggest that there is a correlation between light and gravity. Whether your experiment is valid or not, you should keep pursuing your inquiry.

Louis Rancourt

Bonjour Louis,

Sydney Ernest Grimm just made me aware that your conclusion:

"In order to account for the observations and measurements in his pendulum experiments Louis Rancourt (2011) suggested that gravity could be conceptualized as a pushing force coming from all directions in space. Planet Earth can block some of the pushing force and the net sum of all the vectors of these forces is a downward vector pointing to the ground. That would be the cause of the weight force"

is in agreement with my own analysis as presented on page 65 of this paper of mine recently published, that seems to confirm Einstein's conclusion that gravitation follows the pattern of electromagnetism:

Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf

I have no specific explanation to your observed effect of light on weight, but I am convinced that it is of electromagnetic origin, since light photons are electromagnetic in nature and are also involved with gravitation since their trajectories are deflected by large masses such as that of the Sun as observed during eclipses since Eddington in 1919.

Amicalement, André