EINSTEINIANA AND JOURNALISTS' HONESTY

In 1907 Einstein relalized that Newton's emission theory of light
correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light with the
gravitational potential. Two major implications were almost obvious -
that the emission theory correctly predicts the variation of the speed
of light with the speed of the emitter (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is false) and that the emission theory correctly predicts
the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

This relatively honest period in the development of Einsteiniana ended
in 1915 when Einstein suddenly discovered that light particles are two
times heavier than other particles and so confused Einsteinians' minds
forever:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being two times heavier
than other particles, light particles are massless, that is, not heavy
at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the journal
Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's idiocy is contagious and I fell victim when I said in
my original message:

"This relatively honest period in the development of Einsteiniana
ended in 1915 when Einstein suddenly discovered that light particles
are two times heavier than other particles..."

"However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being two times heavier
than other particles, light particles are massless, that is, not heavy
at all."

In fact, in 1915 Einstein discovered that gravity affects light
particles more strongly than other particles and makes them accelerate
two times faster. That is the idiotic 1915 thesis presented correctly.
As for the equipotential and equally idiotic antithesis ("light
particles are massless, that is, not heavy at all"), it is usually
taught by Stephen Hawking:

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...)"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1907 Einstein relalized that Newton's emission theory of light
correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light with the
gravitational potential. Two major implications were almost obvious -
that the emission theory correctly predicts the variation of the speed
of light with the speed of the emitter (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is false) and that the emission theory correctly predicts
the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

This relatively honest period in the development of Einsteiniana ended
in 1915 when Einstein suddenly discovered that light particles are two
times heavier than other particles and so confused Einsteinians' minds
forever:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being two times heavier
than other particles, light particles are massless, that is, not heavy
at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the journal
Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Pentcho Valev

Genuine honesty:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/433218a.html
NATU "EINSTEIN RESTORED FAITH IN THE UNINTELLIGIBILITY OF SCIENCE.
Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and
again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was.
When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he
attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary
person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about
my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is
funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the
mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses them, it
has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a
fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions
and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too,
revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and
standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian
motion or his photoelectric effect but RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE
WORLD INSIDE OUT."

Pentcho Valev wrote (corrected text):

In 1907 Einstein relalized that Newton's emission theory of light
correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light with the
gravitational potential. Two major implications were almost obvious -
that the emission theory correctly predicts the variation of the speed
of light with the speed of the emitter (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is false) and that the emission theory correctly predicts
the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

This relatively honest period in the development of Einsteiniana ended
in 1915 when Einstein suddenly discovered that gravity affects light
particles more strongly than other particles and makes them accelerate
two times faster, thereby confusing Einsteinians' minds forever:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
accelerate two times faster), light particles are massless, that is,
not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
journal Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 22, 6:10*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
accelerate two times faster), light particles are massless, that is,
not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
journal Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

See, here's the thing; your "construal" is wrong not because it
disagrees with any fantasized conspiracy of Einsteinian cabalists. It
is wrong because EXPERIMENT shows that there is no "crime".

Your "construal" would be correct IF AND ONLY IF experiment agreed
with it.

Experiment does not agree with you.

The "idiocy" was yours.

You were wrong.

It happens to the best of us.

Basing your sense of self-worth on a false interpretation of
experimentally-verifiable theory is silly.

Get over it.


Mark L. Fergerson

Genuine honesty:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...275683050.html
"...Isaac Newton would be astounded that his theories of motion and
gravitation had been usurped by Einstein's theory of relativity.
Christopher Wren would be amazed that modern astronomical measurements
had led to the discovery that we live in an expanding universe that
was once smaller than an atom. But what would surprise the founding
members most is that these, and other discoveries, remain the preserve
of a few. Far from being an indispensable part of the human
experience, science has remained a specialised subject understood by
only a fraction of society. Does it matter? (...) A second, and often
overlooked, reason for a public understanding of science is that
science is part of the human experience, just as history and music
are. Not everyone may want to partake in the actual discovery of the
workings of the natural world, but they deserve to know what has been
discovered! This science-as-culture argument was first articulated by
the physicist C P Snow when he realised that he could engage in
literary discussion with friends in the humanities, while they knew
nothing of his subject. Indeed, he felt that the general public was
being cheated out of a scientific education. This coincides with my
own belief, and that of many scientists, that society has a right to
know the discoveries of modern science. Indeed, I believe society also
has a right to know how those discoveries were made, as the story of
unfolding scientific discovery is an important part of human history."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1907 Einstein relalized that Newton's emission theory of light
correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light with the
gravitational potential. Two major implications were almost obvious -
that the emission theory correctly predicts the variation of the speed
of light with the speed of the emitter (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is false) and that the emission theory correctly predicts
the gravitational redshift factor:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

This relatively honest period in the development of Einsteiniana ended
in 1915 when Einstein suddenly discovered that gravity affects light
particles more strongly than other particles and makes them accelerate
two times faster, thereby confusing Einsteinians' minds forever:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 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. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, 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://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

However the confusion in Einsteinians' minds is never enough - any
idiotic thesis advanced in Einsteiniana has an equipotential and
equally idiotic antithesis. So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
accelerate two times faster), light particles are massless, that is,
not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
journal Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 28, 10:31*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Genuine honesty:


(snip to the crash)

So, apart from being hyperheavy (gravity
affects them more strongly than other particles and makes them
accelerate two times faster),

(Wait... who asserts this?

Theoretical or experimental?)

light particles are massless, that is,
not heavy at all. This last idiocy misled me into construing the
journal Nature's text:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and
heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

as

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
[particles of] light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres
per second squared."

Needless to say, if my construal had been accepted by the scientific
community, Nature would have vindicated Newton's emission theory of
light and the journal would be in serious trouble (attacking Einstein
and vindicating Newton is a crime against the civilization). Then
vigilant Einsteinians informed Nature about the problem, editors
changed the places of "light" and "heavy" and the crime against the
civilization was avoided:

Well, Needless to say, your *mis*construal wasn't accepted etc.

Please. Get over it.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1006....2010.303.html
NATU "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

The article is not about gravity's effect on electromagnetic
radiation. It's about gravity's effect on a weird state of *matter*.

But so what? Let's talk about gravitation and EM radiation *anyway*;
screw any wannabe censors!

If as you say the speed of light is not constant, let's posit
dropping a battery-powered radio transmitter straight down along its
antenna's line-of-sight toward a convenient plane reflector

Pulse it one time while it's falling at some fraction of c, let's
call it dv. Afterward the antenna is basically just a mirror.

There's a clock midway up that releases the transmitter and later
tells it to pulse, and also tells us at the bottom when all this
happens.

When do we first see photons arrive at the reflector?

If velocities add the way you say they do...

The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons.
For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.

That a problem for you?


Mark L. Fergerson