THE JOURNAL NATURE INVOLUNTARILY TOPPLES EINSTEIN

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared. That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory
of general relativity, which states that gravity is indistinguishable
from any other type of acceleration."

That gravity "accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of
9.8 metres per second squared" is true but this is Newton's emission
theory of light developed by John Michell in the 18th century and
temporarily adopted by Einstein in 1911. If NATURE's editors were both
honest and knowledgeable they would have published the following text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared. That
property is the cornerstone of Newton's emission theory of light; it
is equivalent to the fact that, in the absence of a gravitational
field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, v, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v."

Although in 1911 Einstein was on the right track, in 1915 he spoiled
everything by making light accelerate faster than cannonballs by a
factor of two:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Nowadays Einsteiniana's marauders do not give a sh-t about either
Newton's emission theory of light or Einstein's relativity and teach
anything:

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 Newtons 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: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!....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

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]


That gravity "accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of
9.8 metres per second squared" is true
[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, harald wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
And here Kevin Brown explains the factor two much better:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm

Harald

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm
"In the general theory of relativity the predicted frequency shift for
light in a gravitational field is the same as Einstein had predicted
in 1911. However, in the 1915 theory, the amount of deflection which a
ray of light is predicted to undergo when passing by a gravitating
body is twice as much as he had predicted in 1911."

The amount of deflection predicted in 1915 ("twice as much as he had
predicted in 1911") is INCOMPATIBLE with the 1911 frequency shift. See
also this:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

The frequency shift predicted in 1911 (the prediction did not change
in 1915) is f'=f(1+phi/c^2); it was confirmed experimentally by Pound
and Rebka in 1960. Given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) is compatible with Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light
but incompatible with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). Two
conclusions:

(1) Einstein's 1915 theory is inconsistent: the predicted frequency
shift f'=f(1+phi/c^2) and the predicted shift in the speed of light
c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) cannot be reconciled within the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

(2) The Pound-Rebka experiment refutes the amount of deflection
predicted in 1915 ("twice as much as he had predicted in 1911") and
confirms the amount of deflection predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

In 1907 Einstein realized that, in all circumstances, the speed of
photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. However
recognizing that explicitly would have put an end to the system of
miracles (length contraction, time dilation etc.) that was to replace
tedious Newtonian science and convert Albert the Plagiarist into
Divine Albert. So fraud and camouflage invaded the world of science
and yet, from time to time, guilty conscience makes Einsteinians hint
at the truth:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
EINSTEIN'S 1909 CONFESSION: "A large body of facts shows undeniably
that light has certain fundamental properties that are better
explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation
theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the
development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light
that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission
theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this
belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the
composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the
electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state
of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the
light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is
conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical
medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover,
this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual
property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the
absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "And then, in June, Einstein
completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story:
Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special
relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red
Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes
a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as
wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each
problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=10745
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un siècle après son émergence, la théorie de
la relativité est encore bien mal comprise - et pas seulement par les
profanes ! Le vocable même qui la désigne (« relativité ») est fort
inadéquat. Ses énoncés courants abondent en maladresses sémantiques,
et donc en confusions épistémologiques. Paradoxe majeur, cette
théorie, présentée comme un sommet de la modernité scientifique, garde
de nombreux traits primitifs. Or, de récentes recherches montrent
éloquemment qu'un sérieux approfondissement de ses concepts et de ses
formulations peut résulter du retour à ses origines, avant même
Einstein. Déjà le principe de relativité se comprend mieux si on le
détache de la forme nouvelle qu'il prit après Lorentz, Poincaré et
Einstein, pour le ressourcer chez Galilée et Descartes. Mais surtout,
l'examen de nombreux travaux des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, injustement
oubliés, met en évidence une théorie particulaire de la lumière, en
germe dans la physique newtonienne, qui ouvre des voies d'approche
négligées vers la théorie moderne. Ces considérations contrebalancent
utilement le point de vue ondulatoire traditionnel, et allègent ses
difficultés."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la
théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines
historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel,
Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les
principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que
le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context."

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 21, 7:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared. That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory
of general relativity, which states that gravity is indistinguishable
from any other type of acceleration."

Argh! What a poor and sloppy way to put it...

That gravity "accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of
9.8 metres per second squared" is true but this is Newton's emission
theory of light developed by John Michell in the 18th century and
temporarily adopted by Einstein in 1911. If NATURE's editors were both
honest and knowledgeable they would have published the following text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared. That
property is the cornerstone of Newton's emission theory of light; it
is equivalent to the fact that, in the absence of a gravitational
field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, v, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v."

They should have cited Einstein instead, according to whom light bends
but does not accelerate while approaching the Earth.

Although in 1911 Einstein was on the right track, in 1915 he spoiled
everything by making light accelerate faster than cannonballs by a
factor of two:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
[..]

No. And here Kevin Brown explains the factor two much better:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm

Harald

harald wrote:

[...]

I see you are new here.

On Jun 21, 1:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared. That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory
of general relativity, which states that gravity is indistinguishable
from any other type of acceleration."

That gravity "accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of
9.8 metres per second squared" is true but this is Newton's emission
theory of light developed by John Michell in the 18th century and
temporarily adopted by Einstein in 1911. If NATURE's editors were both
honest and knowledgeable they would have published the following text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared. That
property is the cornerstone of Newton's emission theory of light; it
is equivalent to the fact that, in the absence of a gravitational
field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, v, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v."

Although in 1911 Einstein was on the right track, in 1915 he spoiled
everything by making light accelerate faster than cannonballs by a
factor of two:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...ein-papers/191...
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Nowadays Einsteiniana's marauders do not give a sh-t about either
Newton's emission theory of light or Einstein's relativity and teach
anything:

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 Newtons 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?...view=article&i....
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...fLight/speed_o...
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!....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


And the ignorance fest continues...

Igor wrote:
[...]

And the ignorance fest continues...

Yep.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Look carefully at the dates.

Hamid V. Ansari
https://sites.google.com/site/scient...ofhamidvansari

Hamid V. Ansari - Great Mistakes of the Physicists
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"eric gisse" kirjoitti
...
Igor wrote:
[...]

And the ignorance fest continues...

Yep.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Look carefully at the dates.