I think a human will be abe to identify "Can anyone cite an observation that is in conflict with this conclusion?" The conclusion had to be explained first

I can bounce a laser around an optics bench in the lab all day and not have it be aligned with the gravitational field.

Thanks for your reply. I fear you are mistaken, the timing difference of all observed sagnac effects equates to the speed/distance travelled by the observer, relative to the gravitational field (not the ground), during the time of the radiation transmission. [email protected]

I'm trying to help you make your thoughts more concrete. If you want to question general relativity, you should learn it as a mathematical model, then formulate your own model, and compare the predictions made by each theory to see which is more accurate. This is meaningless word salad that sounds to you like things you see written about science. But here there isn't an underlying mathematical model that the words are describing. A clear example-"time difference equates to the speed/distance travelled"-a difference in time (s) cannot equal a speed (m/s) or distance (m).

Thank you for your help, I should have used "corresponds" rather than "equates", eg the 500m the NASA lunar laser projector/receiver travelled corresponds to its relative speed due to earths rotation across the 2.6 seconds the laser pulse took to travel to the moon and back. Correction noted. I am exploring the possibility that the prevailing back ground gravitational field is the relevant fixed point about which the relative motions of the source radiation other mediums and the observer all act. eg we do the 1+2 maths on that basis because the frequency's configured alignment.

A gravitational field does not define a frame of reference. Within our current understanding of gravity, this is nonsense. And surely even you can see that "frequency's configured alignment" is just nonsense. I really strongly encourage you to learn our current understanding of physics - rigorously and mathematically - before you continue trying to suggest new alternative theories. Physics needs creative minds, but it doesn't need creative minds who have zero physics education and think that their nonsensical combination of words is just as valid as mathematical ideas tested with experiments.

"frequency's configured alignment with the prevailing background gravitational field". I define-Prevailing background gravitational field = the net gravitational accelerating vector outcome of all the gravitational fields, from all universal masses, at a given universal location, as modelled by the factors mgr, 1/2mv², mv²/r, WD=fd etc. And, Fixed point = universal location of that net gravitational accelerating vector outcome. The six EM radiation behaviours I have identified appear to confirm that fixed point which is a solution to the invariance of light defined in the 1905 paper.

Instead of that universal ether that Michelson Morley failed to find, providing the fixed point relative to which radiations frequency is aligned, could the solution be= "Prevailing background gravitational field" = the net gravitational accelerating vector outcome of all the gravitational fields, from all universal masses, at a given universal location "Fixed point" = universal location of that net gravitational accelerating vector outcome. Thanks for your time Marco Ocram

OK, now I know this is ChatGPT!

@IainSmith a point in physics is just that- a point. Do you mean a frame of reference? If so, what is the origin of your frame of reference, and what determines the directions of its axes?

Hi Marco. The line of transmission of the radiation defines the axis and its universal location relative to which it travels at "c" is the prevailing background gravitational field. Everyone understands the concept of the universal ether MM disproved. Is the ether the local gravitational field? Look at the 6 radiation observation types in that context and it works.

@IainSmith you are missing my point. I asked about the origin for a reason. What is the origin of your reference frame?

It would be the single universal reference frame of the failed Michelson Morley test. Under that condition does the 6 radiation observation types reveal that "c" is relative to the prevailing background gravitational field.

@IainSmith you are still missing my point. The gravitational field is not a fixed frame of reference, so you cannot specify a velocity relative to it.

Sorry but you can not assume the invariance of light to explain why a possible conflict with it is wrong. We are describing one universal reference frame and the gravitational fields are the ones we observe and experience at a local to the mass level modelled by mgr, 1/2mv²,mv²/r etc. Take that field to be the local acting ether and all 6 observation types appear to be reconciled.

@IainSmith you are still missing the point. The gravitational field is not a frame. It doesn't have an absolute position. Consider the gravitational field where you are sitting now. In a second's time you will have moved through space by a significant distance, owing to the rotation of the Earth about its axis and about the Sun, the rotation of the Galaxy, the expansion of the Universe etc. So where is the point where you were sitting a second ago and what is the gravitational field value there? It is not the same gravitational field from one moment to the next.

@IainSmith the ether was originally conceived as a fixed medium, so you could, in principle at least, be stationary relative to it. The gravitational field is not a fixed medium- you cannot specify even a position relative to it, let alone a velocity.

The prevailing background gravitational field where I am sitting is the one pulling me to the centre of the earth. All radiation around me is travelling along its line of transmission at speed "c" relative to that field due to the configuration of the frequency. The line of transmission can have tangential velocity relative to that field.