RICHARD FEYNMAN AND NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

Richard P. Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles."

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_42.html
Richard Feynman: "A photon of frequency ω_0 has the energy E_0 = �ω_0. Since the energy E_0 has the relativistic mass E_0/c^2 the photon has a mass (not rest mass) �ω_0/c^2, and is "attracted" by the earth. In falling the distance H it will gain an additional energy (�ω_0/c^2)gH, so it arrives with the energy E = �ω_0(1+gH/c^2). But its frequency after the fall is E/�, giving again the result in Eq. (42.5). Our ideas about relativity, quantum physics, and energy conservation all fit together only if Einstein's predictions about clocks in a gravitational field are right. The frequency changes we are talking about are normally very small. For instance, for an altitude difference of 20 meters at the earth's surface the frequency difference is only about two parts in 10^15. However, just such a change has recently been found experimentally using the Mössbauer effect. [R. V. Pound and G. A.. Rebka, Jr., Physical Review Letters Vol. 4, p. 337 (1960)]. Einstein was perfectly correct."

Einstein was NOT perfectly correct - essentially (and implicitly), Feynman confirms Newton's emission theory of light (which says that the speed of photons falling in a gravitational field varies like the speed of ordinary falling objects) and refutes Einstein's relativity. Another authoritative confirmation:

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..."

Pentcho Valev

Other authoritative confirmations of Newton's emission theory of light:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
Albert Einstein: "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."

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. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

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."

According to Banesh Hoffmann, if one starts with the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (as predicted by Newton's emission theory), the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations". If one initially assumes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, the experiment cannot be explained unless one introduces, ad hoc, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, scientists would apply Occam's razor and the latter (independence) assumption would not even be taken into consideration.

Pentcho Valev

http://briankoberlein.com/2014/08/01/bend-like-newton/
Brian Koberlein: "The catch is that the amount of bending predicted by Newton's model is half what Einstein's model predicted. Eddington actually demonstrated not only that light was gravitationally deflected, but that the amount matched Einstein, and not Newton."

Eddington could not have confirmed Einstein's model for a simple reason. The double amount of bending predicted by Einstein goes hand in hand with another, obviously absurd, prediction of general relativity: in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling matter (this latter prediction is incompatible with the Pound-Rebka experiment):

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.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://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.6986.pdf
J.D. Franson, Physics Department, University of Maryland: "According to general relativity, the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is given by:

c = c0(1 + 2phi/c0^2) (1)

where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame."

Pentcho Valev

Arthur Eddington, the greatest cheat in the history of science:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...TE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. (...) L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20 cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques, avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance.. Problème non négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"), correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs... Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages ! Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre, Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre. Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler, décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31" et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue. S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson, directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich. On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de 0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement été escamotées."

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://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...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."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...TE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev