EINSTEIN OR NEWTON ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqoSLWLFjiU
"Who do you consider the greatest of all physicists? When people think physics, they often think of Einstein, but Brian Greene has a different person in mind for the greatest of all physicists."

Brian Greene seems to have deciphered the message in the following text (written by perhaps the cleverest ever Einsteinian):

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's relativity and Newton's emission theory of light give different predictions for the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field. Which prediction is compatible with the Pound-Rebka experiment? Let us see:

The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speed u. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

According to Newton's emission theory of light, light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies. Therefore, if the top of the tower emits a light pulse downwards, this pulse will reach the ground with speed (relative to the ground):

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

The frequency an observer on the ground will measure is:

f' = c'/λ = f(1 + gh/c^2)

where λ is the wavelength and f=c/λ is the initial frequency (as measured at the top of the tower). This frequency shift (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

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. 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."

Now Einsteinians are to show that the variation of the speed of falling light predicted by Einstein's relativity is compatible with the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, the first thing to do is to give an explicit and quantitative description of this variation. How does the speed of falling light vary, Einsteinians? This question always paralyses Einsteinians' thinking:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev