Re: some thoughts on the invariance of c
Carl Reiff
[Snipped...]
You recently wrote: "You will need to supply contrary experimental evidence if you say otherwise, viz. Light speed accelerates due to gravity due to ether inflow."
This prompted me to look deeper into Pound-Rebka. When I wrote my Gravitational Flow paper, I didn't include anything regarding it. Matching the known values of GPS time dilation, the Shapiro delay, and the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit using the principles of gravitational flow were enough for me. But now, I'm going to have to go back and update my paper to include Pound-Rebka. (Thanks for that.)
The following link is a PDF of a conversation I had with ChatGPT. I tried to frame my prompts/questions so as not to influence or lead it in any direction. I wanted it to perform its own analysis and come up with its own assessment. I simply gave it the constraints/framework within which to operate.
It's kind of lengthy (eight pages) as ChatGTP's responses are often rather wordy (and it covered a lot of ground).
http://elgenwave.com/gravitationalflow/pound-rebka%20and%20gravitational%20flow.pdf
Kind regards,
Carl
---------------
Hi Carl,
R.I.P. our departed Ian Montgomery. We enjoyed some robust debates while he was with us...
This is the opening paragraph to the Pound-Rebka paper, “As we proposed a few months ago,1 we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein,2 of gravitational potential on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as discovered by Mossbauer”.
The reference [2] is given as A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 35, 898 (1911). You can find the original in German here, http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
It seems there may be copyright issues over the English translations that used to be freely available, although I still have a copy. Please go to Equation (3) of whatever version because that is the bone of contention in this discussion, and get familiarized with its implication, as that is what Pound-Rebka were testing.
On the Vladimir Leonov paper, yes you are correct that using an MMX style interferometer in the vertical orientation, there will be an observed shift. This shift can be due to light accelerating or decelerating in the vertical arm when compared to the horizontal. That is, either of acceleration or deceleration will manifest in an observable fringe shift. The interpretation that fits the ether inflow due to gravity is that the fringe shift will be due to light speed accelerating vertically. But is that actually correct? I say, not.
All the evidence already mentioned are decisive, e.g. Einstein’s Eq.(3) of his 1911 paper and the experiments aimed to test this, e.g. Pound-Rebka, Leonov’s concluding remarks, the Shapiro delay and Gravitational lensing which are refractive phenomena due to change of refractive index from n~1 to n>1.
If you still insist on ether inflow or on a particulate ether, what is left is not to continue denying the evidence of light speed deceleration due to gravity, as inconvenient as this may be, but to toe the line that Franklin has taken by admitting this as an anomalous behaviour of the ether model of choice, requiring some new unorthodox explanation.
Regards,
Akinbo
*What I meant Pound-Rebka “properly interpreted” can only be discussed after you read the paper yourself and focus on the last two or three paragraphs in it. I believe the paper is also freely available online.
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 1:23 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Cc: Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; cc: Nick Percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; to: Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: some thoughts on the invariance of cHi Akinbo,
As Ian Montgomery used to say, "Snipped." (In reference to deleting older comments in the thread in order to reduce the size of e-mails everyone is receiving. A savings in storage space.)
I went though the papers of Vladimir Leonov. Thanks for those. After looking at them, I'm confused because now I don't think I understand your disagreement with me. Leonov constructed an interferometer which can probe in the vertical orientation (as well as the horizontal). In my 2015 Gravitational Flow paper, published 2021, I discuss using an MMX style interferometer in the vertical orientation, asserting that a fringe shift would occur. Evidently, Leonov's device confirms that. (I'll come back to the implications of this further down.)
You mention light bending (gravitational lensing) and light delay (Shapiro delay). Both of these involve largely horizontal passages of light in or very near intense gravitation. The GR geodesic represents a "curved" path. The video which Joe shared presents a common representation of this at 0:25 through 0:33. The curved path is longer, requiring more transit time. This accounts for the extra time in the Shapiro delay. I have a section in my paper addressing the Shapiro delay based on the principles of gravitational flow (GF). The path followed is likewise a curve, albeit different than the imagined GR one. The total microsecond delay matches that of both the GR prediction and the Shapiro delay experiment result.
You also mention Pound-Rebka, albeit with a, "properly interpreted," caveat. Which begs the question, properly interpreted according to whom? It comes across simply as something which is up for debate. So, we'll table it since we're probably just going to disagree.
Now, back to the Leonov device (papers) which Roger A. introduced. It doesn't show anything when oriented in the horizontal plane, but definitely shows something when oriented in the vertical plane. Just as MMX was intended to show a change due to an increase of light speed when an arm was aligned with Earth's orbital path (due to an aether headwind), couldn't the same be said for Leonov's device when aligned vertically?
Finally, you wrote: "You will need to supply contrary experimental evidence if you say otherwise, viz. Light speed accelerates due to gravity due to ether inflow." Okay, boom, done.
Kind regards,
Carl
----------------
On 6/7/2025 12:08 PM, Akinbo Ojo wrote:
Hi Carl,I will send you references tomorrow, if I have to. Among the experimental support for light speed slowing near gravity are 1) light bending (gravitational lensing, with theoretical refractive index), 2) light delay (Shapiro delay), 3) Pound-Rebka (properly interpreted and according to Einstein's equation 3 of his 1911 paper), and 4) a recent one from a recent post by Roger A., "Speed of Light is not constant, it depends on gravity: proven experimentally" by a guy named Leonov.You will need to supply contrary experimental evidence if you say otherwise, viz. Light speed accelerates due to gravity due to ether inflow.Regards,Akinbo
From: Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 5:44 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <stepha...@uwi.edu>; Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com>; Joe Sorge <joe....@decisivedx.com>
Cc: Ian Cowan <ianco...@gmail.com>; David de Hilster <dehi...@gmail.com>; cc: Nick Percival <nper...@snet.net>; Dennis Allen <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; James J. Keene <james...@gmail.com>; Jerry Harvey <jerry...@gmail.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; netchit...@gmail.com <netchit...@gmail.com>; cc: alexdf...@gmail.com <alexdf...@gmail.com>; amir...@aim.com <amir...@aim.com>; AJ <andre...@gmail.com>; rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com <rwg...@rwgrayprojects.com>; ILYA BYSTRYAK <ibys...@comcast.net>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com>; jorgenm...@gmail.com <jorgenm...@gmail.com>; to: Richard Kaufman <rdkau...@gmail.com>; Richard VAN AMELFFORT <wist...@rogers.com>; Robert French <robert....@gmail.com>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; to: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; cc: to: Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; Viraj Fernando cc: <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Abridged Recipients <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: some thoughts on the invariance of cHi Akinbo,
In your first paragraph, you wrote: "Gravity is a force that acts between particles that have mass." While I think I understand your intended meaning, for accuracy's sake, I would phrase it thus: "The gravity of any particle (of mass) acts through all other particles (of mass)."
As for light speed reducing as it falls under gravity... When I was struggling to reconcile how light behaves under relativity, I used a tool which has served me well over the years. I picked an extreme example/scenario regarding the questions I had. Because doing so almost always clearly reveals what's actually going on. Therefore, I focused my thoughts on the behavior of outbound light at or closely outside the event horizon of a black hole. If at the event horizon, it's racing along at c, not making any headway. If it's just beyond/outside the event horizon, it moves away slowly and picks up speed (relative to the event horizon) until it is finally traveling at c as we recognize it.
Now, if light speed (c) is indeed a constant, then in order for it to behave the way it does at or near an event horizon, then space/the aether/whatever must be flowing inward at increasing speeds, finally reaching c at the event horizon. Accordingly, light speed (c) doesn't change relative to whatever the background is. I think it's gravity.
For the heck of it, I asked ChatGPT about it. I didn't exactly expect this reply:
🧠 A Helpful Analogy: “Space as a Waterfall”
This is inspired by the "river model" of black holes:
So, relative to the event horizon, inbound light would be traveling at up to 2c. But, relative to the background, it's always traveling at c.
Imagine space itself is like water flowing inward toward the black hole.
At the event horizon, this “river of space” flows inward at the speed of light.
Outside the horizon, the flow is slightly less than .
A photon just outside is trying to swim upstream at against a river flowing at just under .
Now, this assumed to be devoid of all matter particles. So, refractive index is n=1. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that light speed decreases as it falls. Perhaps the Pound-Rebka experiment. If so, be careful about basing changes in light speed on wavelength.
On your final point... How did you come up with your refractive index of n approximately equal to 1.000000001? I assume that's for Earth. And if I had to guess, it based on the calculation we both independently performed showing that light speed in deep space is approximately 0.2 meters per second faster (I don't recall the four decimal place value off the top of my head - something like 0.2083) than it is on Earth.
Kind regards,
Carl
-----------------
Akinbo Ojo
Hi Carl,
It is possible you don’t have access to the Pound and Rebka paper. If so, I think you can have free access here, http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v4/i7/p337_1.
There is a little but important interesting error in the paper (third to last paragraph, read from the sentence before Expressed in this unit...). That can be a subject for later discussion.
But my important message here is that from the motivation for the experiment, “As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein,...”, have you asked yourself what Einstein hypothesized since the reference was provided?
I had earlier linked that paper for you and drawn attention to the Equation (3) in it, viz. c = co (1 + φ/c2). The velocity of light has two values in the equation as a consequence of gravity, what was Einstein hypothesizing with that equation with two values for c? There are other quotes I have posted here, but probably you were not in the mood to entertain them then.
The other matter you raised in other email, concerned the derivation of gamma and how straight line motion on a specific axis is central to the derivation and involved the use of Pythagoras theorem.
Regards,
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:42 AM