Tried to post the following on http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33079/rotating-mirror-foucaults-measurement-of-light-speed/41232#41232 but they didn't think it relevant to their discussion on the speed of light:

The interpretation of Michelson's & Morley's experiment is not correct. That is, the speed of light is not an universal constant. The key is gravity. Think of light not so much as an electro-magnetic wave but as a gravitational-electro-magnetic wave. What I am saying is gravity is the "unfound" Aeither. Light comes from (mass) gravity, and light travels by means of gravity. Of course, many of the strange predictions of Einstein's Special Relativity fall. In analogy, if you permit, somewhat as a sound wave travels though air, a GEM (light, gravitational-electromagmetic "wave") travels through gravity. I think of it as a (very) small Weber wave.


  • I do not think that there is a directly proportionality between the speed of light and the gravitational density, however. 

  • Think of light as a wave/particle that travels by means of gravity -- no gravity, no traveling. Since light comes from mass (e.g., electron in atom) it is rather hard to find light without a nearby source of gravity.  But different sources of gravity will give different speeds of light relevant to some point in space -- depends on what the point is "doing".  

  • I would like light to be attracted by gravity, as in Einstein's star.  However, a star is but a lens and a lens curves light.  So I wouldn't be terribly upset to find out that light isn't attracted by gravity --  but how does one explain the curvature of light in a lens?  I like gravitational explanations -- even for the wave explanation of light.