Dishonest Albert teaches dishonest Einsteinians to camouflage the
extremely dangerous fact that the speed of photons varies exactly as
the speed of cannonballs does (in accordance with Newton's emission
theory of light):

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one. If we did not satisfy this
condition, we should arrive at a definition of time by the application
of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this
would certainly be unnatural and unpractical. Therefore the two clocks
in S1 and S2 do not both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time
in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock
which goes 1+phi/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared
with U at one and the same place. For when measured by such a clock
the frequency of the ray of light which is considered above is at its
emission in S2 (...) equal to the frequency v1 of the same ray of
light on its arrival in S1. This has a consequence which is of
fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity
of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free
system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the
same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our
fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has
just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring
time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring
time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates,
has the gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when
removed to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c^2) times more
slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-
ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

Dishonest Einsteinians brilliantly develop Dishonest Albert's idea:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14 ( http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
):
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed. (...) This GR time-dilation effect was
first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma
rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease
in frequency) at the top."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that
time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This
is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its
frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the
greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in
the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency
goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest
and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that
everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was
tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the
top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was
nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with
general relativity."

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket
ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock
at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If
we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock
at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see
that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second,
and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light
flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the
distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It
is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher
speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the
two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would
arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second,
since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "D'un point de vue plus général, puisque la fréquence
d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à l'échelle atomique, le
principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une dilatation
gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux horloges
situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel différents."

http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/01...uete-des-temps
Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace
et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le
temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très
dense qu'à proximité d'une planète."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev