GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND SPEED OF LIGHT

In 1911 Divine Albert said that the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing that photons accelerate just as fast as cannonballs. Then in 1916 Divine Albert decided to outdo Newton and ordered the photons to accelerate twice as fast as cannonballs, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

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/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."

The problem is: Is the gravitational redshift, that is, the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka, consistent with c'=c(1+phi/c^2) or is it consistent with c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)? Could f'=f(1+phi/c^2) be consistent with both c'=c(1+phi/c^2) and c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)?

Anything can be consistent with anything else in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world so f'=f(1+phi/c^2) is absolutely consistent with both c'=c(1+phi/c^2) and c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html
"The difference between c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)(1916) and c'=c(1+phi/c^2)(1911) is the factor 2 with the gravitational potential. Gravitational redshift gives no decision which of the equations is the right one. Of course eq.(1911) is consistent with gravitational redshift because it was derived from redshift. On the contrary the inversion is not true..."

Einsteiniana's zombies are not supposed to discuss the subtleties of the variable speed of light. They should just buy and read bestsellers where things are simple: the speed of light is always constant and that's it:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "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...."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...in-relativity/
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center.. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

Opponent: Does "light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" mean "light will lose SPEED as it is escaping a gravitational field"? In other words, is the gravitational redshift a measure of the reduction in the speed of light?

Einsteiniana's zombies: Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Divine Stephen Hawking, Handsome Brian Cox and many other brilliant teachers teach us the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field! Who says light loses speed in a gravitational field?

Opponent: Einstein did. In 1911 he said light loses speed just as cannonballs do, then in 1916 he informed the world that light loses speed even faster than cannonballs.

Einsteiniana's zombies looking for the disrespectful opponent:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-c...4-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re13/L13r.html
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."

Einsteiniana's zombies want to know who at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign teaches that the increase in frequency is due to an increase in the speed of light:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-c...4-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev

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."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964AmJPh..32...52O
American Journal of Physics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 52-55 (1964): "Gravitational redshift of photons from a star and gravitational bending of the path of photons grazing the sun can be derived by using only Newton's laws and the idea of a photon as a particle of mass hv/c^2. The difference between the relativistic and Newtonian equations for gravitational redshift is too small to be detected and, therefore, gravitational redshift does not provide experimental verification of the general theory of relativity."

Opponent: Einsteinians? No problem with the above quotations? Is the gravitational redshift a measure of the reduction in the speed of light, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light?

Einsteiniana's priests:

http://skipper810.files.wordpress.co...ria1.png?w=640

Einsteiniana's zombies:

http://www.theglaringfacts.com/wp-co...fearappeal.jpg

Pentcho Valev