DECELERATION OF FALLING LIGHT IN RELATIVITY ?

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

Crucial questions:

c' = ?

L' = ?

Assumption 1: There is no gravitational time dilation.

Assumption 2: L' = L

It seems that, under Assumptions 1 and 2, Einstein's relativity would predict:

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

That is, unlike ordinary falling objects, falling light DECELERATES.

Lifting Assumption 1 leads to:

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

Finally, lifting both Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 leads to:

c' = c

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

That is what Einsteinians usually teach.

Pentcho Valev

Light emitted by the source of gravity, unlike any other emitted object, ACCELERATES as it escapes the gravitational field, and its speed reaches its maximal value in gravitation-free space. That is what Einsteinians teach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

Pentcho Valev

There can be no doubt - according to Einstein's relativity, falling light, unlike ordinary falling objects, DECELERATES. In 1915 Einstein informed the world that it decelerates twice as fast as he had taught in 1911:

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. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) 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."

Yet Einsteinians have found it profitable to kill rationality in science by using verbiage which suggests that falling light, like ordinary falling objects, ACCELERATES:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

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.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

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."

Pentcho Valev