STEPHEN HAWKING'S LOGIC

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

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://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...)"

Stephen Hawking's logic:

PREMISE: The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of
light is independent of the movements of both the emitter and the
observer.

CONCLUSION: The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field.
JOHN MICHELL WAS WRONG.

Logic inherent in Newton's emission theory of light:

PREMISE: The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of
light varies with v, the relative speed of the emitter and the
observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

Confirmations of the emission theory's PREMISE in Einsteiniana:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message news:fd02b363-484d-4549-aea8-

CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational

potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.

The speed of light in a vacuum is always C=3x10^8 meters per second. In General
Relativity, time runs at different rates at different locations in a gravity
field relative to a fixed point. So, relative to a given location, light's speed
can be observed to be different due to gravitational time dilation.

+

"K_h" wrote in message
...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
news:fd02b363-484d-4549-aea8-
|
| CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
|
| potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
| reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
| c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.
|
| The speed of light in a vacuum is always C=3x10^8 meters per second.

You stupid, LYING *******.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- § 3. Theory of the
Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another
System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that
the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with
the principle of relativity." -- § 3. Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

For those morons that don't know what a contradiction is, there are no
contradictions in the speed of light being c and also c-v simultaneously.