I know this is meant for Billy, but I thought I'd take a stab at this

1) What benefit is there to considering light to be a gravitational effect? How do you use gravity to calculate its speed or wavelength? Can you actually describe anything quantitative about the real world through this approach?

2) Why is the speed of light in vacuum always the same, whether it's measured by labs on Earth or satellites in space? Why do signals from Earth to space and space to Earth always travel at c? Doesn't seem gravity makes any difference here.


Let's say that the speed of light is pushed by gravitational fields. This would mean that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the gravitational field that the light is traveling through.

So if you had a device that is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the speed of light would be constant in that device because the device is stationary in the Earth's gravitational field (the Earth's field spins with the Earth).

If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object, would decrease or increase depending on the direction of the light in that object. However, the average speed of light (in all three dimensions) of light in that object would decrease. The decrease in the average speed of light in that object would cause the reactions in that object to slow down since the reactions are dependent on the speed of light.

If my model is correct, it would not only replace relativity, but it would also explain photon propulsion.

So if you had a device that is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the speed of light would be constant in that device because the device is stationary in the Earth's gravitational field (the Earth's field spins with the Earth).
Except that
If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object
The Earth IS moving through a gravitational field, that of the Sun for one.

If my model is correct
You're severely misusing the term "model".

but it would also explain photon propulsion.
As opposed to the existing explanation?

Let's say that the speed of light is pushed by gravitational fields.

Describe, using equations preferably, why this should be the case.

Or, conversely, you can explain an experiment where this was shown to be the case.

Dywyddyr,

The Earth IS moving through a gravitational field, that of the Sun for one.

But on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is much stronger than the Sun's. So the Sun's field has an effect on light on the surface of the Earth, but very little.

As opposed to the existing explanation?

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.

BenTheMan,

Describe, using equations preferably, why this should be the case.
Or, conversely, you can explain an experiment where this was shown to be the case.

The Michelson-Morley device clearly indicated that the speed of light was constant regardless of how the device was rotated. Since the device was actually stationary on the surface of the Earth, and therefore stationary in the Earth's gravitational field, it's pretty easy to conclude that the speed of light in the device could be linked to the Earth's gravitational field.

Dywyddyr,
But on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is much stronger than the Sun's. So the Sun's field has an effect on light on the surface of the Earth, but very little.
Except that we can measure to incredible accuracies and STILL nothing shows...

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.
You didn't mention that, you stated photon propulsion.
And your "model" wouldn't explain it either.

Dywyddyr,

Except that we can measure to incredible accuracies and STILL nothing shows...

That's not true. These types of experiments have been done over the years and they all showed variances. These variances were considered errors since they are so much smaller than the expected orbit of the Earth around the Sun (which was thought to be the minimum speed of the Earth through the aether).

You didn't mention that, you stated photon propulsion.
And your "model" wouldn't explain it either.

My model implies that photon's have a "deformed" gravitational field that enables them to accelerate in an external gravitational field.

Dywyddyr,
That's not true. These types of experiments have been done over the years and they all showed variances. These variances were considered errors since they are so much smaller than the expected orbit of the Earth around the Sun (which was thought to be the minimum speed of the Earth through the aether).
Which proves my point: the "variations" don't match anything like that expected from our motion.

My model implies that photon's have a "deformed" gravitational field that enables them to accelerate in an external gravitational field.
Your supposition (model has a precise meaning in physics) still wouldn't account for the invariance of C.

Dywyddyr,

Which proves my point: the "variations" don't match anything like that expected from our motion.

True. But if instead of assuming that the Earth is moving through the aether at a high speed, you assume that the combination of the Earth's and Sun's gravitational fields have an effect on the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, then these variations are no longer within the "margin of error".

Your supposition (model has a precise meaning in physics) still wouldn't account for the invariance of C.

My supposition states that the speed of light is not invariant. It changes based on whether the observer is stationary or moving in a gravitational field. The change in the speed of light is exactly why clocks that are moving through a gravitational field ticking slower. So in my supposition, moving clocks do not tick slower because of time dilation, but because the average speed of light has decreased in the clocks (relative to the clocks).

it's pretty easy to conclude that the speed of light in the device could be linked to the Earth's gravitational field.

Ahh I see.

BenTheMan,

Exactly what is the reason you moved this thread to Pseudoscience???

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.If they have no rest mass then they must move at c.

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.You claim to have a model which can replace relativity. Demonstrate how you can correctly predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the time dilation effects experimentally measured by the GPS system.

If you can't then pseudoscience is precisely where you deserve to be.

BenTheMan,

Exactly what is the reason you moved this thread to Pseudoscience???

1.) Gravity doesn't "push" light.

2.) If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object, would decrease or increase depending on the direction of the light in that object.

explicitly contradicts measurements made for the past 100 years.

3.) If my model is correct,

There is no model. You've made some vague statements, and claimed that half of physics for the past 100 years is wrong.

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.

I only move the shitty ideas to pseudoscience.

See ya!

AlphaNumeric,

If they have no rest mass then they must move at c.

Why can't a particle with no rest mass just sit there?

You claim to have a model which can replace relativity. Demonstrate how you can correctly predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the time dilation effects experimentally measured by the GPS system.

First, precession of Mercury has nothing to do with my model.

Second, I explained why reactions slow down in an object moving in a gravitational field in a previous post.

BenTheMan,

1.) Gravity doesn't "push" light.

How do you know?

explicitly contradicts measurements made for the past 100 years.

When was the speed of light measured in an object that was actually moving in a gravitational field in the past 100 years? Please provide the experiments.

There is no model. You've made some vague statements, and claimed that half of physics for the past 100 years is wrong.

You can call it whatever you want. Does it have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed theory to be posted on Sciforums?

I only move the shitty ideas to pseudoscience.

See ya!

No, you only move the theories that you don't "like" to pseudoscience. You're a real scientist!

How do you know?

Because General Relativity is the most accurate theory known to man (thanks DH!).

When was the speed of light measured in an object that was actually moving in a gravitational field in the past 100 years? Please provide the experiments.

The fact that c is a constant to all observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity. Thus, all tests that confirm special relativity confirm the two postulates. Your job is to either explain why your theory gives the same conclusions, and why all of the experiments that have already been preformed are not right. It is not my job to explain why you are wrong, it is your job to explain why I am wrong.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science. It's not for everybody.

You can call it whatever you want. Does it have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed theory to be posted on Sciforums?

No, but it has to at least make sense.

No, you only move the theories that you don't "like" to pseudoscience. You're a real scientist!

If by ``don't like'' you mean ``find offensive in the name of Ganesh, Yahweh and Francis Bacon, and all other things holy and good'', then you are correct.

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore

I'm still waiting for this to come true...

BenTheMan,

I see you avoided the question. I asked how do you know that gravity doesn't push photons?

The fact that c is a constant to all observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity. Thus, all tests that confirm special relativity confirm the two postulates.

Wrong. So if I say that pink leprechauns make electric and magnetic fields, proving that electric and magnetic fields are real proves that pink leprechauns exist. What kind of logic is that???

No, but it has to at least make sense.

Exactly what part of my idea do you have problems understanding?

True. But if instead of assuming that the Earth is moving through the aether at a high speed, you assume that the combination of the Earth's and Sun's gravitational fields have an effect on the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, then these variations are no longer within the "margin of error".
There is no aether.
These variations are no longer within the margin of error?
So you HAVE done the maths?

My supposition states that the speed of light is not invariant.
Contradicting everything we know...

First, precession of Mercury has nothing to do with my model.
So you missed that as confirmation of E=MC[su]2[/sup]

BenTheMan,
I see you avoided the question. I asked how do you know that gravity doesn't push photons?
Gravity only "pulls".

Wrong. So if I say that pink leprechauns make electric and magnetic fields, proving that electric and magnetic fields are real proves that pink leprechauns exist. What kind of logic is that???
Missed the point haven't you?
There's no evidence or requirement for leprechauns of any colour.

Prosoothus,
Rejection is a big part of furthering science. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Ben moved my idea from the physics forum into pseudoscience but you don't see me whining about it. I would like to think it was moved not so much because it was a 'shitty' idea but because I hadn't provided enough information to draw a conclusion. In my case nobody seemed to care about what I had to say so there was no need to elaborate. Be grateful that you got an explanation for being moved. Be grateful that others even tried to correct your misconceptions. If you came to SF to tell others "how it is" then be prepared to be ridiculed. If you came to SF to learn where your ideas fail then listen up. I'm sorry to break it to you like this but you don't get to decide what the next accepted theory will be. It is people like Ben (only more critical) who get to decide this.

I see you avoided the question. I asked how do you know that gravity doesn't push photons?

And I asked you how you know that is DOES push photons. I didn't avoid the question, I stated that GR has never been shown to be wrong. What you are proposing is not consistent with GR, and so YOU have to explain to ME why you're right.

This is how science works. It's not a bunch of people getting high and coming up with ideas to show how clever they are, and talking out of their asses. That's called going to a party with an English humanities student.

So if I say that pink leprechauns make electric and magnetic fields, proving that electric and magnetic fields are real proves that pink leprechauns exist. What kind of logic is that???

As it stands, this is more or less how I feel about the claims that you've made.

As with all claims that the first postulate of SR is wrong (constancy of the speed of light), this one is no different. You can test that the speed of light is constant in different reference frames. It HAS been done. Here, I'll save you some work. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tests+of+the+second+postulate)

Exactly what part of my idea do you have problems understanding?

I don't think me understanding your idea is as much of a problem as you understanding the scientific method/science in general.

Acitnoids,

There was simply no reason for my thread to be in Pseudoscience. The basic assumption in my model is that photons travel at c only relative to the gravitational field that there in. This isn't some kind of far-out idea. We already know that gravity curves the paths of photons, so another photon-gravity interaction is not some kind of crazy idea. Everything else I said in my posts are logical deductions from that single assumption.

I even provided the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the decreased ticking rate of traveling atomic clocks as evidence to support my theory. It seems that this evidence is good enough for Einstein, but not good enough for me.

I'm really thinking of not posting at all on Sciforums. I mean if my posts are going to be moved to the same section that discusses UFO's and aliens, I'd rather just save my time and effort and not post at all.

BenTheMan,

And I asked you how you know that is DOES push photons. I didn't avoid the question, I stated that GR has never been shown to be wrong. What you are proposing is not consistent with GR, and so YOU have to explain to ME why you're right.

If you wanted to know, you should've just asked. Instead you didn't, and quickly moved my thread into Pseudoscience.

You can test that the speed of light is constant in different reference frames. It HAS been done.

Your wrong. It hasn't. The only places where the omnidirectional speed of light was measured to be constant was on stationary locations on the surface of the Earth. The omnidirectional speed of light has NEVER been measured in a device that wasn't stationary in a gravitational field.

Dywyddyr,

There is no aether.
These variations are no longer within the margin of error?
So you HAVE done the maths?

Kind of. Using just Newton's equation for gravity I've found that the gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth is almost 2000 times stronger than the gravitational force of the Sun on that same object. Using this number I found that that Sun's gravitational field will only cause the speed of light on the surface of the Earth to change by less than 20m/s. This is much less than the 30 km/s (Earth's orbit) that was expected in the aether-detecting experiments.

Gravity only "pulls".

Gravity only pulls objects with a uniform gravitational field (standard mass). I believe that photon's have a special gravitational field that allows them to be pulled from one side, and pushed from the other. Maybe they are gravitational dipoles, I don't know.

Prosoothus,

You might want to check this:
http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=28&pictureid=117

The animation represents two different wave forms, which could be used to represent say "Light". Both waves are of different sizes, however when they are observed and measured, they are referenced using the same timing over the same distances.

This is represented by being the moving green box in the animation, it's a moving window that is moving at a "Constant", even though both wave forms are of different "Frequency" they are of the same "Constant" speed.

Prosoothus,
It's one thing to state your assumptions with words it is another thing if you can show your work mathematically. Einstien didn't use words to describe the constant nature of light, he used math. He didn't wake up one day and decide that a massive body could alter the direction of a distant light source, he used math. Without math you have nothing. These aren't my rules or the rules of SF, it's just the way it has always been. Talk is cheap. The more you learn about what is known and why the more you will understand your errors. BTW, GPS satellites are not stationary and they use light to find your EXACT position so to say that c has never been measured in a device that wasn't stationary is just flat out incorrect.

Testing second postulate by bouncing light off of orbiting satellite:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=560312

Tests of General Relativity, which is based on the second postulate:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/reviews/rppref/sports/2007/grav-web.pdf

Kind of. Using just Newton's equation for gravity I've found that the gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth is almost 2000 times stronger than the gravitational force of the Sun on that same object. Using this number I found that that Sun's gravitational field will only cause the speed of light on the surface of the Earth to change by less than 20m/s. This is much less than the 30 km/s (Earth's orbit) that was expected in the aether-detecting experiments.
And since we know the value of C to several decimal places 20 or 30 m/sec is easily within discernible limits.

Gravity only pulls objects with a uniform gravitational field (standard mass). I believe that photon's have a special gravitational field that allows them to be pulled from one side, and pushed from the other. Maybe they are gravitational dipoles, I don't know.
And the evidence for this would be...?
What you have is a non-testable self-sustaining speculation.
Any evidence anywhere for gravitational dipoles?

Acitnoids,

It's one thing to state your assumptions with words it is another thing if you can show your work mathematically. Einstien didn't use words to describe the constant nature of light, he used math. He didn't wake up one day and decide that a massive body could alter the direction of a distant light source, he used math. Without math you have nothing.

You're wrong. With math you can get details, but the idea itself is abstract.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that we lived 2000 years ago, and I told you that two objects with mass are attracted to each other. This is a valid theory. Sure it would be nice to know exactly the strength of the attractive force. And you can get that with the math. But math is not needed to know that two masses attract each other, all you need is the evidence that they do.

Same thing with my idea. I would like to know exactly how multiple gravitational fields moving at different velocities influence a photon that's moving through them, but I'll just be satisfied with the fact of knowing that they do.

BTW, GPS satellites are not stationary and they use light to find your EXACT position so to say that c has never been measured in a device that wasn't stationary is just flat out incorrect.

GPS satellites do not have a device inside of them that measures the omnidirectional speed of light. The speed of light could be decreased in the satellite, and the only way would know would be that their clock would be ticking a little slower. However, relativists would claim that there clocks are ticking slower due to time dilation, and not because the speed of light inside the clocks have changed.

GPS satellites do not have a device inside of them that measures the omnidirectional speed of light.

See post #27.

Dywyddyr,

And since we know the value of C to several decimal places 20 or 30 m/sec is easily within discernible limits.

Check out this wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Lower down that page it gives a table listing the results of the different types of aether-detection experiments done over the years. If you divide the Fringe Shift Measured by the Fringe Shift Expected (which is 30km/s), you'll find that this number is greater than 20m/s (expected change in the speed of light based on my model) divided by 30km/s. In other words, the variance in the speed of light in all of these experiments are larger than 20m/s.

The article does indicate that some recent experiments were done where the variance is much smaller. I'll have to take a closer look at them.

And the evidence for this would be...?
What you have is a non-testable self-sustaining speculation.
Any evidence anywhere for gravitational dipoles?

You're right. Pure speculation. I have no evidence that photons are gravitational dipoles, or even that they have a "deformed" gravitational field. I just thought that it was the most probable reason for their assumed behavior.

BenTheMan,

See post #27.

If you look at that experiment in detail, and you think about what my model predicts, you'll find that according to my model the speed of light measured in that experiment should be very close to c (as it was).

My model states that the speed of light will change for an object that is moving through a gravitational field. In the link you provided, one end of the object is the ground station, and the second part of the object are the satellites. The entire object is moving very very slowly relative to the Earth's gravitational field, so therefore almost no variance in the speed of the light should be, or was, detected.

The way to test whether my model is wrong or right would be to measure the speed of light in an object that is moving at high speeds through a gravitational field.

I don't know what your model predicts, because all you've made is a bunch of vague statements:

Let's say that the speed of light is pushed by gravitational fields.

If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object, would decrease or increase depending on the direction of the light in that object.

Can you predict, from your model, how much the speed of light should change? How do you know what ``not much'' means if you don't actually have any numbers to back it up?

Here's a deal: you show me, mathematically, that your model isn't ruled out by the above experiments, and I'll make sure this thread goes back into Physics and Math.

Why can't a particle with no rest mass just sit there?
Because in relativity no rest mass is equivalent to a null trajectory, the path moves along a zero size space-time interval so you get c^{2}dt^{2} - dx^{2} = 0 or \frac{dx}{dt} = c.

First, precession of Mercury has nothing to do with my model.
Then you have no right to claim your work can replace relativity since there are phenomena relativity can explain but you can't.

BenTheMan,

Can you predict, from your model, how much the speed of light should change? How do you know what ``not much'' means if you don't actually have any numbers to back it up?


Here is what I posted earlier:

"Using just Newton's equation for gravity I've found that the gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth is almost 2000 times stronger than the gravitational force of the Sun on that same object. Using this number I found that that Sun's gravitational field will only cause the speed of light on the surface of the Earth to change by less than 20m/s. This is much less than the 30 km/s (Earth's orbit) that was expected in the aether-detecting experiments."

From my above statements, I'm sure you can tell how I came up with the numbers that I did. Here is the data:

You have two gravitational fields influence light on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's and the Sun's.

The gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth resulting between the object and the Earth is:

F1=m(object)*m(Earth)*G/d^2(distance from the Earth)

The gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth resulting between the object and the Sun is:

F2=m(object)*m(Sun)*G/d^2(distance from the Sun)

Now to find how much stronger the gravitational field between the object and the Earth is relative to the object and the sun is:

F1/F2 = (m(Earth)*d^2(distance from the Sun))/m(Sun)/d^2(distance from the Earth)

If you do the calculations, you'll find that the Earth's gravitational effects on the object are 1655.15 times stronger than the Sun's effect on that same object. So on the surface of the Earth, two forces are influencing light:

1 (the strength of gravitational force of the Sun) moving at 60,000m/s (speed of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the object)

1655 (the strength of the gravitational force of the Earth) moving at 0m/s (speed of the Earth's gravitational field relative to the object)

Hypothetically, if both of these forces were equal in strength, a photon on the surface of the Earth would be traveling at c + 30,000m/s(vector) relative to both the Sun and the Earth. But since the the Earth's effect on the light is 1655 times stronger than the Sun's, the difference in the speed of light in this case would be:

(v1+v2)/2 * 1/1655 = 18.12m/s

In summary, the speed of light measured on the surface of the Earth should be c(E) +- 18.12m/s where c(E) is the speed of light in the Earth's atmosphere.

Let me also point out that your request was a little unfair. You basically asked me to calculate the variance in the speed of light when the light is being influenced by two gravitational fields, at two different strengths, moving at two different speeds relative to each other. It's like requiring a person to mathematically explain the movement of an electron in a lithium atom in order to prove that electrons repel other electrons.

Here's a deal: you show me, mathematically, that your model isn't ruled out by the above experiments, and I'll make sure this thread goes back into Physics and Math.

I already showed you in the first experiment that the entire device, which in that case consists of two satellites and a ground station, is actually not moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field. As a result, according to my idea, since there is no movement of the device, the speed of light measured should be c (as it was). According to my model, the speed of light in a device would only change if the device was moving through, and moving relative to, a gravitational field.

As for the other experiment, my model does not cover all the effects of gravity on light. Besides gravity accelerating light to c, I believe that it can also force the rotation of photons causing them to change their paths. The larger distance covered by the photons as a result of a curved path could, in turn, result in slower reactions. I really don't have it all worked out. After all, my theory is not complete. But then again, there are no theories that are.

!!Lol!!

AlphaNumeric,

Because in relativity no rest mass is equivalent to a null trajectory

With all do respect, this thread is discussing how certain experiments can be explained without time dilation or length contraction. This would imply that relativity might be wrong. Then to state that objects without a rest mass have to travel at c because relativity says so, is inappropriate.

Then you have no right to claim your work can replace relativity since there are phenomena relativity can explain but you can't.

You're right. I was wrong to say that my idea can replace relativity. Let me rephrase it. My model can now explain certain experiments in a simpler and more intuitive way than relativity. Maybe in the future, it will replace some, or all, of relativity.

As for the other experiment, my model does not cover all the effects of gravity on light.

Why not?

You're asking me to trade a theory which DOES explain ALL of gravity's effect on light (relativity) for one that DOESN'T explain all of gravity's effects on light?

When I asked you to give me some numbers, you detailed an unrelated calculation. You told me that the measuring device didn't test ``your idea'' because it wasn't moving in relation to the gravitational field. I'm not sure this matters, because the gravitational field is still changing along the path that the photon takes. In that respect, I don't see the difference.

Either way, you contradict yourself as you back-peddle:

If you look at that experiment in detail, and you think about what my model predicts, you'll find that according to my model the speed of light measured in that experiment should be very close to c (as it was).

I already showed you in the first experiment that the entire device, which in that case consists of two satellites and a ground station, is actually not moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field. As a result, according to my idea, since there is no movement of the device, the speed of light measured should be c (as it was).

I asked you (after the first quote) to quantify what ``very close to c'' means, and then you come back and say ``according to my idea...the speed of light measured should be c''.

I'm done with this conversation. As always, you can have the last word :)

BenTheMan,


"Originally Posted by Prosoothus
As for the other experiment, my model does not cover all the effects of gravity on light.
”
Why not?


Because I didn't get to it yet. Is that OK with you?

When I asked you to give me some numbers, you detailed an unrelated calculation. You told me that the measuring device didn't test ``your idea'' because it wasn't moving in relation to the gravitational field. I'm not sure this matters, because the gravitational field is still changing along the path that the photon takes. In that respect, I don't see the difference.

The strength of the gravitational field is changing, but the motion of the gravitational field is not. My model only takes into consideration the motion of the field. The only time the strength of the field needs to be taken into affect is when there are multiple fields moving at different speeds relative to each other.

I asked you (after the first quote) to quantify what ``very close to c'' means, and then you come back and say ``according to my idea...the speed of light measured should be c''.

The satellites and the base station are generally stationary in the Earth's gravitational field so the speed of light that is measured is very close to c. Am I saying that the are not moving at all relative to the gravitational field? No, I'm not. I don't know if the gravitational field of the Earth at the height of the satellites is moving relative to the geosynchronous satellites.

I'm also aware that the Sun's gravitational influence, and the Earth's gravitational influence, on the light changes based on where exactly the light is, at the moment, in its trip to the satellites and back to Earth.

Also, the path and the angle of the light beams will determine their speed as well. If the light is traveling to the satellite in the same direction at which the Earth is orbiting the Sun, the effect would be different than if the light was traveling in the opposite direction of the Earth's orbit.

As you can see, there are a lot of factors which would determine exactly how large the variance in the speed of light is in the experiment. I do not have all this data. That's why I'm saying that the speed of light measured should be c, or very close to c.

Actually I found something in a recent issue of New Scientist involving the Chinese investigating the potential of Gravitation fluctations caused during an Eclipse.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327183.800-eclipse-sparks-hunt-for-gravity-oddity.html

Of course it's suggesting that Light has an effect on gravity, but obviously the results to their readouts will give at least a starting point to actually answering if it's a case of this.

To be honest it would actually make sense that photonic energy from the sun would cause an increase in waveformations on those atoms that fields are "pinged" (Very technical term for striking a field with a photon.)

(if China proves this, I guess their New Scientific Age will be the "Ping Dynasty")

Stryder,

That was an interesting article you posted. I have no idea how an eclipse would influence gravity on the surface of the Earth. It just doesn't make sense. I wonder if gravity increased or decreased during the eclipse, the article doesn't say.

Of course it's suggesting that Light has an effect on gravity, but obviously the results to their readouts will give at least a starting point to actually answering if it's a case of this.

To be honest it would actually make sense that photonic energy from the sun would cause an increase in waveformations on those atoms that fields are "pinged" (Very technical term for striking a field with a photon.)

It doesn't have to be photons, it can be some other particles from the Sun. (Maybe even dark matter :D). Or it might not be the Sun at all, it might be the Moon.

if China proves this, I guess their New Scientific Age will be the "Ping Dynasty"

:p

Stryder,
It doesn't have to be photons, it can be some other particles from the Sun. (Maybe even dark matter :D). Or it might not be the Sun at all, it might be the Moon.

I'd prefer to keep the reasoning in line with what we've already got, rather than start inventing some sort of exotic carrier wave that didn't exist before the experiment.

All I'm suggesting is that some photons or at least their waves are likely to cause radiation decay which would effect molecular bonds and likely electron orbits. This would likely cause atoms to exert more energy when being lit than when being devoid of light, which in turn would effect the overall fields they emit. (In this instance Gravity)

Of course I'll leave it to budding scientists to work out how to measure that or of course fob it off with some mathematical prowess.