EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY

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)."

This was just plagiarism of Newton's emission theory of light - the
relation is based on the assumption that photons and cannonballs
accelerate identically in a gravitational field. In 1915 Einstein
found it profitable to "outdo" Newton and declared that the speed of
photons is even more variable than the speed of cannonballs:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"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......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."

So Einstein made his greatest discovery: Light emitted by a massive
celestial body NEVER moves at c=300000km/s through field-free space
where the gravitational potential is constant but different from the
potential at the point of emission. Rather, the speed of light is
ALWAYS lower than c=300000km/s.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell’s electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted.
Einstein ran into numerous difficulties in his explorations of an
emission theory. The principle difficulty, however, was this: if the
emission theory was to be formulated as a field theory in which light
is fully described as a propagating wave, then a light wave must
somehow encode within it the velocity of its emitter, so that the
theory could assign the correct velocity of propagation to each wave.
No such encoding seemed possible, however, since experience showed
that light waves were fully characterized simply by their intensity,
color and polarization."

Was "the principle difficulty" just spurious? The variation of the
speed of light predicted by the emission theory (c'=c+v) is expressed
as a variation of the frequency, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

So, if c'=c+v is correct, light waves remain "fully characterized
simply by their intensity, color and polarization". The difference is
in the interpretation:

1. If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c) is
correct, then, as the observer starts moving towards the light source,
the frequency he measures increases and since the speed of the light
is to remain constant (here Einsteinians start singing "Divine
Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
and in the end go into convulsions), the formula says that the
observer should miraculously procrusteanize the wavelength of the
coming light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://www.quora.com/How-does-partic...ht-is-constant
Clint Law, M.S. in physics, experimentalist: "Red-shift is not an
alteration of the speed of light, but the frequency of the light.
(...) A thought experiment that may help: Imagine creating some
ripples in a lake, let's say from a dropped rock. You, the observer,
are standing a fixed distance from the source. Some time after the
rock is dropped, the first wave will reach your location. Then the
next few ripples will hit you, and you can measure the frequency of
the wave (the rate of pulses per unit time). Now, imagine that you are
moving away from the dropped rock. But, you are still exactly the same
distance away from the rock when the first wave hits (i.e. you must
have started closer to the rock than in the first example). The time
it took for the waves to get to you will be exactly the same (because
the waves propagated at a fixed speed). But, and here's the big deal,
the wave fronts will be spaced farther apart (in time), because you
are moving in the same direction. So, the bottom line is that the
speed of the wave is the same, but the (apparent) frequency is
changed."

2. If the equation c'=c+v is correct, then, as the observer starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency and the speed of light
increase while the wavelength remains constant (this is exactly what
happens to all other waves):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement
La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas.
Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "An experiment to test this idea was done in the early
'60s by Pound and Rebka in a tower 20 feet from where my office was as
a graduate student. First consider light shined downward in a freely
falling elevator of height h. Inside the elevator, we're a happy
inertial frame. We say it takes time t=h/c to hit the bottom. We also
say that there's no Doppler shift of the frequency of the light. But
how does this look from the ground? Say the light beam was emitted
just as the elevator was released into free fall (i.e. at zero
velocity). By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it
is accelerated to some velocity v. Since light travels so fast, the
elevator isn't traveling very fast when the light hits the bottom, so
v is pretty small, and we can use non-relativistic formulas for this
(but not the light!). We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. Now let's see
what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even
without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities
measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an
ambulance changes as it passes you – it doesn't change if you're on
the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small
relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from
f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you).
There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here. Now
back to our experiment. In the freely-falling elevator, we're inertial
and measure the same frequency f at top and bottom. Now to the earth
frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so
earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the
bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the
earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In
the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground
the frequency
f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2)
On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity
bend light, but changes its frequency as well."

If the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), then, in
accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c+v=c(1+gh/c^2), as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, or the wavelength
shifts from L to L'=L/(1+v/c)=L/(1+gh/c^2). Which alternative is more
reasonable?

Pentcho Valev

Joking apart, Einstein did make an important discovery at the end of
his life (in 1954): Deductivism allows one, by advancing a single
false assumption (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate),
to kill a whole science:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 DISCOVERY: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Clues to EINSTEIN'S 1954 DISCOVERY:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a
discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of
Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous
conception of the field."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By 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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate
that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that
holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...)
The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Bryan Wallace wrote
"The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the
text!]

Pentcho Valev

Why did experiments fail to refute Einstein's 1905 false constant-
speed-of-light postulate? Imre Lakatos explains:

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its
"hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set
out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding
defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses.
(...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the
"ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective
belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core
assumptions..."

In the absence of any protective belt, the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes the hard core of
Einstein's special relativity and confirms the hard core of Newton's
emission theory of light. The first building block of the protective
belt, the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis advanced by Fitzgerald
and Lorentz, reversed the situation: the Michelson-Morley experiment
started to support the constancy of the speed of light (independence
of the speed of the source).

Pentcho Valev