EINSTEINIANS TEST DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitt...tar_experiment
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics. (...) De Sitter's argument was criticized because of possible extinction effects. That is, during their flight to Earth, the light rays should have been absorbed and re-emitted by interstellar matter nearly at rest relative to Earth, so that the speed of light should become constant with respect to Earth. However, Kenneth Brecher published the results of a similar double-survey in 1977, and reached a similar conclusion - that any apparent irregularities in double-star orbits were too small to support the emission theory. Contrary to De Sitter, he observed the x-ray spectrum, thereby eliminating possible influences of the extinction effect."

Here is Brecher's paper:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) expects a system with uncertain parameters to produce "peculiar effects". The system does not produce them. Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Needless to say, a refutation of this kind can only be valid in Divine Albert's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the unknown or uncertain parameters of the double star system do not allow critics to show why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

Einsteinians like this way of doing science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

Perhaps the most famous experiment unequivocally proving that Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is absolutely wrong, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...et_al_1964.pdf
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians know that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source - what else could it be? And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/lab...ystoday_09.pdf
Daniel Kennefick: "In a 1911 paper, Einstein first predicted that light would fall in a gravitational field, so starlight passing close to the limb of the Sun would be deflected from its path. He calculated that the observed position of a star whose light passed near the Sun would change by 0.87 arcsecond (0.87"). His analysis was based on his understanding of basic features a relativistic theory of gravity must include, in particular the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle demands that all masses must fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. Eddington and Dyson labeled the value Einstein calculated in 1911 as the "Newtonian" value, a label justified by the subsequent discovery that a similar value based only on Newtonian physics had been published in 1804 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner. In 1916, after he had developed the final version of his theory of general relativity, Einstein realized that there was an additional component to the light-deflection effect caused by the way that the Sun's mass curves spacetime around itself. Thus a straight path, or geodesic, near the Sun is curved, compared with a path through flat space. The extra deflection caused by that curvature is comparable to the deflection due solely to falling, so that the general relativistic prediction calls for twice as great a shift in stellar positions - about 1.75" at the limb of the Sun - as does the Newtonian theory."

In 1919 Eddington fudged the results in favour of Einstein's double deflection but here this will not be the problem. The double deflection implies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling matter:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/res...s/JeruLect.pdf
LECTURES ON GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, RAMESH NARAYAN AND MATTHIAS BARTELMANN, p. 3: " The effect of spacetime curvature on the light paths can then be expressed in terms of an effective index of refraction n, which is given by (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992):
n = 1-(2/c^2)phi = 1+(2/c^2)|phi|
Note that the Newtonian potential is negative if it is defined such that it approaches zero at infinity. As in normal geometrical optics, a refractive index n1 implies that light travels slower than in free vacuum. Thus, the effective speed of a ray of light in a gravitational field is:
v = c/n ~ c-(2/c)|phi| "

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=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. (...) ...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://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~rvikt..._Cosmology.pdf
Relativity, Gravitation, and Cosmology, T. Cheng

p.49: This implies that the speed of light as measured by the remote observer is reduced by gravity as

c(r) = (1 + phi(r)/c^2)c (3.39)

Namely, the speed of light will be seen by an observer (with his coordinate clock) to vary from position to position as the gravitational potential varies from position to position.

p.93: Namely, the retardation of a light signal is twice as large as that given in (3.39)

c(r) = (1 + 2phi(r)/c^2)c (6.28)
________________________________________________
[end of quotation]

The Newtonian (or Einstein's 1911) equation describing the variation of the speed of light:

c' = c(1+phi/c^2)

is obviously consistent with the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka:

f' = f(1+phi/c^2)

while Einstein's 1915 double-variation equation:

c' = c(1+2phi/c^2)

is obviously inconsistent with the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka.

Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment was a straightforward refutation of Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The glorious confirmation of the "Einstein shift":

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topi...trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation...therington.pdf
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported.. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H..Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

That is, the glorious confirmation of the Einstein shift was rather fraudulent for a few decades. Yet in 1959 it became absolutely glorious - no fraud at all:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-the-test.html
"The first test of gravitational redshift occurred in 1925. That year, the astronomer Walter Adams gauged the spectral signature from Sirius B. A white dwarf star, Sirius B is extremely dense and thus has a strong gravitational field. Adams' measurements agreed with predictions made using GR, but because the physics of such bodies was then only poorly understood, scientists couldn't rule out that the redshift stemmed from some other cause. It wasn't until 1959 that the first truly conclusive experiment of redshift occurred right here on Earth. That year, physicists Robert Pound and Glen Rebka conducted a novel experiment inside the 74-foot-tall tower of Harvard's Jefferson Laboratory. (...) The experiment offered one of the first high-precision tests of GR."

Nowadays Einsteinians know and even teach that the "Einstein shift" is in fact a "Newton shift":

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Why do Einsteinians teach that the "Einstein shift" is a "Newton shift"? For fun - that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

The Hafele-Keating hoax:

http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli...044_%20166.pdf
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains, J. C. Hafele; Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. It might well be that the Earth center rotated around some other center of rotation even faster than the jet used by Hafele and Keating, which means that Einstein's theory of relativity, true or false, was totally unable to predict the outcome of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results, misled by the feeling that the Earth center is the nonrotating inertial center of rotation of the whole Universe.

Pentcho Valev