I agree EvilEye some good questions have been asked and I'm still thinking.

My comment now is: Isn't the speed of light constant ~ 300,000kps and it doesn't go slower in a medium but rather is interacting with the medium?
In other words when light is created in the center of the sun it takes a very long time to escape because of all the detours, and not because it slowed down, because I think its still going at ~300,000kps.

I might be wrong on this, let me know please.

You could in a way say that it takes detours, but the problem is the light that's created in the sun's core is not the same light emitted at the surface; they are different photons.
As for the general interference process and the light we do see:
The sun's core produces gamma rays, (so even if the photons came straight from the core to earth, you couldn't see them with your eyes alone). These high energy photons created in core shoot off randomly from the ion they are emitted from, and are absorbed and remitted many times over before reaching the sun's surface, losing energy each time. Due to conservation of energy, the number of photons increases.
So, its energy from the core that causes the photons seen on the surface, but those photons are not the identical ones emitted from the core.
Also, each gamma ray emitted by the core results in about 1000 lower energy photons released from the sun’s surface, with visible light among these lower energy photons.
It's a really brief summary, but I hope this helps a bit?
And yep, light is always traveling at ~300,000kps.

__________________
The wonderful thing about science is that it's alive. -Richard Feynman

Well thank you for that response Aiwe. I'm learning more and more.

I was thinking about the implied presevered gravity in mugaliens response.
I guess it would be preserved, just spread out in a far greater area, and therefor negligible.

If a ball bearing were to be converted to pure energy then e=mc2 would give you an extremely large surface area, in relation to the original ball bearing. But I believe the mass and therefor gravity would be preserved and ergo energy would have gravity. I guess.

Evileye; you equating light to gravity is brillant ( no pun intended ).
You may well be right, I have to do some further thinking.

Just for the record...

I didn't equate light to gravity.

I was postulating that maybe gravity is a form of a light-like "thing" that we can only detect by its effect on other things.

Light is the same... we would never detect light if we were blind.... but... yes we would... plants grow...and we feel heat.... so somewhere along the line we would eventually figure it out.

Imagine if we could only see Black & white and shades of the same... Would we ever even have developed a word for color? Would we know about Ultra Violet or Infrared?

I think we would have found them, but in a much more intuitive way.

Thank you. As I said above, I don't think that God, for those that believe, can ever be taken out of the equation. There will always be the question of 'what was before that'

I don't think so. The reason I say that is Anti-Gravity has NEVER been 'seen', measured in any way, never been found in any experiment, and numerous other reasons.

I could go into a whole L-CDM discertation here, but I'm not sure you are up on all that.

And sorry, but this is just stringing some terms together that sound good and speculating. You want to be real careful about that

If you can find a 'real' correlation to something that you are studying, you may be lucky enough for that correlation to be built into something that can show additional correlations ETC.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

RussT;

I'm so far down the rabbit hole in this parallel universe thread that you are absolutely correct I am looking for something that sounds good even if it is highly speculative.

And thank you for the warning about doing so because I have indeed turned on the lathe of heaven for some of my thoughts.

Back to anti/gravity: I think we see the effect of it with universal expansion.

In other words at the beginning ( before the big bang ) the gravity was so great it became anti/gravity and repelled all.( things? )

Very Very Very Highly Speculative I know. And I have a feeling you can disprove it. If possible could you keep it simple. ( without Lamda and C.D.M. )

EvilEye:

I'm sorry I like thinking about a possiblity of equating light and gravity.
It does appear, as you pointed out, some essential similarities between the two, and since all forces at the beginning were ONE.( VERY SPECULATIVE )

Best to all,

Profpat

P.S. If I am breaking any thread rules about being too speculative, please let me know. Parallel universes is a speculative topic however. And a good topic.

Don't be sorry Pat.

I was making it clear that I was comparing gravity to light... not the other way around.