THE LIFETIME OF GENERAL RELATIVITY

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...00th-birthday/
Scientific American: "General relativity seems certain to continue to be a cornerstone of physics in decades to come."

In my comment on the paper I claim that general relativity will collapse as soon as the following two texts are properly analysed:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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..."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/low-...-cox-lucky-me/
"By a weird coincidence, the next evening I was invited by a friend of a friend to have dinner with Professor Cox at his home. I had neither met him before nor seen him on telly. Over dinner we talked about Einstein's theory of relativity being the last word, still, on how we understand the universe. We talked about how the latest theories about the origin of the universe are tending towards the astonishing idea that there was in fact no beginning, and that the universe is eternally going backwards in time as well as forwards."

So Brian Cox has already informed his friends that the Big Bang is dead. When are you going to inform the gullible world, Brian Cox? How about Divine Albert's Divine Theory? Is it still a money-spinner for you? Are you going to abandon it? Next year? This year is for celebration and a lot of money is to be made?

Einsteiniana's high priests leave the sinking ship:

http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-conte...iam-andiam.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians measure the frequency shift and inform the gullible world that they have proved time dilation, a miraculous effect gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf
Optical Clocks and Relativity, C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland, Science 24 September 2010, Vol. 329, pp. 1630-1633

Actually, there is no time dilation. Just as in the Pound-Rebka experiment (and in Doppler effect measurements), the frequency shift always confirms the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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..." x

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." x

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann-0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

More relativistic fraud:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

As shown in my previous posting, the gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not the result of time dilation - it is the result of the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians know no limits:

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-einstei...ies-space.html
"Albert Einstein first penned his theory of general relativity in 1915, but we're only now starting to scratch the surface to see what the theory predicts, said Professor Lewis. "One of the things coming out of the mathematics is a possible mechanism to allow us to travel through the universe nominally faster than the speed of light," he said. "In the next 100 or 200 years, maybe the theory will give us solutions such as being able to travel efficiently and at high speeds across the universe."

Pentcho Valev