NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

So the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be deduced from two postulates:

1. The principle of relativity.

2. The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source, v, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

This means that the Michelson-Morley experiment will REFUTE any theory based on the following two postulates unless auxiliary ad hoc hypotheses are advanced:

1. The principle of relativity.

2'. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the light source; that is, the equation c'=c is obeyed.

The auxiliary ad hoc hypotheses that made the Michelson-Morley experiment double-edged are referred to as "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

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. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

So the Pound-Rebka experiment has confirmed the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field and the respective frequency shift predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. If Einstein's general relativity predicts a different variation, then the Pound-Rebka experiment REFUTES it:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are......In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (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...)"

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

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."

Pentcho Valev

Paul Ehrenfest and the emission theory:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Pentcho Valev

Newton's emission theory of light predicts that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, gh, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). This prediction is confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment which has established that the frequency varies in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2).

Einsteiniana's priests teach that three equations show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential: c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and c'=c. For Einsteiniana's zombies this means that the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory in a glorious way, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, while the confirmation of the emission theory is insignificant and not worth mentioning.

Pentcho Valev

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation v'=v(1+gh/v^2) (it is assumed that v(v'-v) and air friction is ignored).

According to Newton's emission theory of light, the speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2)..

According to Divine Albert's Divine Theory, the speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter):

(1) does not vary at all, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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."

(2) varies with the gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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

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

(3) varies with the gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2), yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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
"In the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative. To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is actually not a constant but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light', Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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: (...) For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Pentcho Valev