TACIT REJECTION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

If the tutor were faithful to Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity, he would have written:

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Still the
velocity of waves relative to the observer remains c. (...) The motion
of an observer alters the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a
result of this alteration - the observer encounters more wavelengths
in a given time."

Obviously the tutor does not want to sound silly and tacitly rejects
the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-
light postulate. Other tutors tacitly (explicitly in the last example)
toppling Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 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 !"

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.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://www.opednews.com/articles/Goo...10718-424.html
Timothy McGettigan: "Thomas Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions
take place when dominant paradigms are dislodged by emergent
paradigms. Science undergoes such transitions when established
paradigms fail to account for an increasing number of empirical
anomalies. Anomalies may be understood as enigmas for which existing
knowledge systems lack convincing explanations, e.g., dark energy..."

For a century the established paradigm has been unable to reconcile
the frequency shift measured in various circumstances with the
formula:

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

The most reasonable explanation - the frequency and the speed of light
change while the wavelength remains constant - is forbidden within the
established paradigm even though the speed of light is VARIABLE in all
versions of Einstein's general relativity. So any interpretation of
the frequency shift introduces or presupposes some absurd variation of
the wavelength. For instance, "dark energy" implies that the expanding
universe somehow stretches the wavelength so that any variation of the
speed of light can be ruled out automatically.

Pentcho Valev

As an observer moving towards the wave source increases his speed, the
speed of the waves relative to him increases as well. The idea that
the observer, by changing his speed, changes the wavelength is more
than absurd. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world this would be a truism. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
such thoughts are forbidden in cases where light is concerned but
ordinary Einsteinians often do not know that and involuntarily refer,
one way or another, to the variability of the speed of light and the
constancy of the wavelength:

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/redshift.pdf
"Appliqué à la lumière, cet effet Doppler-Fizeau engendre un décalage
des fréquences émises par une source en mouvement par rapport à un
observateur. Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? Par un exemple simple :
Une personne est debout sur le rivage d'un bord de la mer. Des vagues
lui arrivent sur les pieds toutes les dix secondes. La personne
marche, puis court en direction du large (là où se forment les
vagues). Elle va à la rencontre des vagues, celles-ci l'atteignent
avec une fréquence plus élevée (par exemple toutes les huit secondes,
puis toutes les cinq secondes). La personne fait alors demi-tour et
marche puis court en direction de la plage. Les vagues l'atteignent
avec une fréquence moins élevée, par exemple toutes les douze, puis
quinze secondes. Cette petite démonstration s'applique à une onde
physique, comme un son, ou ici les vagues sur l'océan pour une
meilleure compréhension. Elle peut être extrapolée à une onde
lumineuse, en considérant que le sommet d'une vague est le point
d'amplitude maximale de l'onde lumineuse."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink", can teach the absurdity without any problems:

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.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

The idea that the moving observer, by changing his own speed, changes
the wavelength of the incoming light is more than absurd but at the
same time it is the most important idea in Einsteiniana. Clever
Einsteinians know that, if the idea is absurd, the "deep upheaval of
the common conception of time" has in fact put an end to any
rationality in science:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often
fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common
conception of time", of the seminal paper of Einstein in June 1905. It
is true that many of the equations, and mathematical considerations,
of this paper were also contained in a 1904 paper of Lorentz, and in
two papers of Poincare submitted in June and July 1905. It is also
true that the central informational core of a physical theory is
defined by its fundamental equations, and that for some theories
(notably Quantum Mechanics) the fundamental equations were discovered
before their physical interpretation. However, in the case of Special
Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new
mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about
the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect
to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local
time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as
experienced by a moving observer. This new conceptualization of time
implied a deep upheaval of the common conception of time. Max Planck
immediately realized this and said, later, that Einstein's
breakthrough exceeded in audacity everything that had been
accomplished so far in speculative science, and that the idea of non-
Euclidean geometries was, by comparison, mere "child's play"."

Thibault Damour does not understand anything but other Einsteinians
are desperately returning to the "common conception of time":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher
based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in
physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The
trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with
relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose
geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to
differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to
do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity
seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics
operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But
Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special
relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless
they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is
relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a
proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is
literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of
his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has
become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes
that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real
as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The
notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for
Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate
students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/151
"The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion." It was none other than Einstein who uttered
these words. He was speaking about how our perception of time differs
from the fundamental nature of time in physics. Take our perceptions
first: We have a clear sense of the present moment, what came before,
and what might come after. Unfortunately, physics treats time rather
differently. Einstein's theory of special relativity presents us with
a four-dimensional spacetime, in which the past, present and future
are already mapped out. There is no special "now," just as there's no
special "here." And just like spacetime does not have a fundamental
direction - forcing us to move inexorably from east to west, say -
time does not flow. "You have this big gap between the time of
fundamental science and the time we experience," says Craig Callender,
a philosopher at the University of California, San Diego."

http://hps.master.univ-paris7.fr/cours_du_temps.doc
Etienne Klein: "Aujourd'hui, L'astrophysicien Thibault Damour
développe à sa manière des idées qui vont dans le même sens. Selon
lui, le temps qui passe (qu'il sagisse d'un fait ou de notre
sentiment) est le produit de notre seule subjectivité, un effet que
nous devrions au caractère irréversible de notre mise en mémoire, de
sorte que la question du cours du temps relèverait non pas de la
physique, mais des sciences cognitives. Il écrit : « De même que la
notion de température n'a aucun sens si l'on considère un système
constitué d'un petit nombre de particules, de même il est probable que
la notion d'écoulement du temps n'a de sens que pour certains systèmes
complexes, qui évoluent hors de l'équilibre thermodynamique, et qui
gèrent d'une certaine façon les informations accumulées dans leur
mémoire. » Le temps ne serait donc qu'une apparence d'ordre
psychologique : « Dans le domaine d'espace-temps que nous observons,
poursuit-il, nous avons l'impression qu'il s'écoule "du bas vers le
haut" de l'espace-temps, alors qu'en réalité ce dernier constitue un
bloc rigide qui n'est nullement orienté a priori : il ne le devient
que pour nous [35]. » L'existence même d'un « cours du temps », ou
d'un « passage du temps », n'est ainsi que simple apparence pour de
nombreux physiciens contemporains. Certains vont même jusqu'à
considérer le passage du temps comme une pure illusion, comme un
produit culturel abusivement dérivé de la métaphore du fleuve. C'est
en effet la conception dite de l'« univers-bloc » qui semble avoir les
faveurs d'une majorité de physiciens. Dans le droit fil de la théorie
de la relativité, celle-ci consiste à invoquer un univers constitué
d'un continuum d'espace-temps à quatre dimensions, privé de tout flux
temporel : tous les événements, qu'ils soient passés, présents et
futurs, ont exactement la même réalité, de la même façon que
différents lieux coexistent, en même temps et avec le même poids
ontologique, dans l'espace. En d'autres termes, les notions de passé
ou de futur ne sont que des notions relatives, comme celles d'Est et
d'Ouest. En un sens, tout ce qui va exister existe déjà et tout ce qui
a existé existe encore. L'espace-temps contient l'ensemble de
l'histoire de la réalité comme la partition contient l'uvre musicale :
la partition existe sous une forme statique, mais ce qu'elle contient,
l'esprit humain l'appréhende généralement sous la forme d'un flux
temporel."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of the West Indies
"Consider a fixed transmitter from which light or other
electromagnetic radiation is emitted at frequency fo and speed c. A
receiver mounted on a vehicle is located such that the radiation from
the transmitter can be detected and the frequency of the received
signal determined. For a stationary vehicle, wave fronts of
electromagnetic radiation travel to the receiver and arrive at speed c
and frequency fo. (...) When the vehicle moves toward the transmitter
at speed v, the receiver intercepts an increased number of wave fronts
per unit time compared with the stationary situation. (...) Therefore
the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light or other
electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the receiver
toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed relative to
the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in radiation
frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at speed v
much lower than c towards or away from a stationary source intercepts
electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency change arises
because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic radiation at a
relative speed c ± v that is different from the light speed c. Though
special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this light speed
variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly contradicts the
light speed invariance requirement of special relativity. (...) The
relative light speed c ± v occurring in the Doppler phenomenon in
accordance with classical velocity composition confirms ether drift
arising from movement through a preferred reference frame."

The result c'=c+v confirms Newton's emission theory of light - this
theory predicts that light always moves from the transmitter to the
STATIONARY receiver with a speed c. If an ether mechanism were
involved, then, generally, light would move from the transmitter to
the STATIONARY receiver with a speed different from c, depending on
the initial ether wind.

Pentcho Valev

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equations (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining these equations with:

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

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

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."

By combining the above equations with the formula:

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

one obtains THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT and refutes EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE
CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured
at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m
tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency)
at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were
able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts
in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 22, 11:32Â*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equations (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...anika/David%20...
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining these equations with:

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

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

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."

By combining the above equations with the formula:

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

one obtains THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT and refutes EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE
CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...anika/David%20...
David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured
at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m
tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency)
at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were
able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts
in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev



I was asked by nonscientists to give my opinion of these two posters.

Koobee Wublee


Pentcho Valev

I am not sure if KW use of GR means General Relativity.

Anyway, it appears to me that KW and PV are far from understanding
physics.

And it appears their motivation is to ragg on Einstein. There are
plenty of
things to rag on Einstein such as General Relativity is all a fake,
and the fact that much of what is credited to Einstein is due mostly
to the era in which he lived and worked, that it was easy to steal
away the work of others and thus given false credit.

Einstein was not the discoverer of
(a) Special Relativity by Lorentz and Poincare
(b) E = mc^2 had a long history before Einstein
(c) Bose statistics should be called that and not Bose Einstein
statistics
(d) Bose Condensate should not be called Bose Einstein Condensate

General Relativity should be divided between Hilbert and Einstein, but
GR is a fake theory anyway so who cares for its credit.

The point I want to make is that I weighed in on KW and PV to satisfy
some readers.

SR is a true theory of Physics, for it is just Maxwell Equations. To
say that SR is
false is like saying that a moving magnet in a stationary wire loop is
not the same as
a moving wire loop over a stationary magnet. This is what I mean that
KW and PV are
not physics people and lack the understanding of Physics, and both
need to go to school to learn real physics.

I am sure neither one of them, if they are two different persons (or
computer), will sit up and learn anything from this post of mine, but
rather plunge further into making themselves fools of physics. I
recommend not reading their posts.

For anyone to post constantly that they think Special Relativity is
flawed, would be the same as someone in mathematics constantly posting
that 2 + 2 is not 4.

To trash on Special Relativity means we throw out the Maxwell
Equations, and we throw out the Dirac Equation and by doing so, we
throw out Quantum Mechanics.

Of course, the sci newsgroups are freedom of speech, so I suppose we
have enough room in the sci newsgroups to tolerate these anti-physics
posters who know little to nothing about physics.

If KW and PV are motivated to rag on Einstein, then all they need to
do is ragg on
Einstein's General Relativity and his penchant for stealing the works
of others without proper citations. There is some evidence that even
Einstein's early publications were due mostly to the ideas of his
first wife, rather than Einstein himself, since after 1905 when he
broke up with his first wife who was a physicist
in her own right, that Einstein never really had any more science
discoveries of note.
So if you want to ragg on Einstein, there is plenty of material to do
that, but at least, for the sake of Physics, stop trying to ragg on
Special Relativity which only makes you look worse than a science
fool.

Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium 
whole entire
Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud
are galaxies

On Jul 23, 4:13Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:32Â*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equations (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...anika/David%20...
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining these equations with:

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

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

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."

By combining the above equations with the formula:

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

one obtains THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

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

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT and refutes EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE
CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...anika/David%20...
David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured
at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m
tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency)
at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were
able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts
in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev


I was asked by nonscientists to give my opinion of these two posters.

Koobee Wublee

Pentcho Valev

I am not sure if KW use of GR means General Relativity.

Anyway, it appears to me that KW and PV are far from understanding
physics.

And it appears their motivation is to ragg on Einstein. There are
plenty of
things to rag on Einstein such as General Relativity is all a fake,
and the fact that much of what is credited to Einstein is due mostly
to the era in which he lived and worked, that it was easy to steal
away the work of others and thus given false credit.

Einstein was not the discoverer of
(a) Special Relativity by Lorentz and Poincare
(b) E = mc^2 had a long history before Einstein
(c) Bose statistics should be called that and not Bose Einstein
statistics
(d) Bose Condensate should not be called Bose Einstein Condensate

General Relativity should be divided between Hilbert and Einstein, but
GR is a fake Â*theory anyway so who cares for its credit.

The point I want to make is that I weighed in on KW and PV to satisfy
some readers.

SR is a true theory of Physics, for it is just Maxwell Equations. To
say that SR is
false is like saying that a moving magnet in a stationary wire loop is
not the same as
a moving wire loop over a stationary magnet. This is what I mean that
KW and PV are
not physics people and lack the understanding of Physics, and both
need to go to school to learn real physics.

I am sure neither one of them, if they are two different persons (or
computer), will sit up and learn anything from this post of mine, but
rather plunge further into making themselves fools of physics. I
recommend not reading their posts.

For anyone to post constantly that they think Special Relativity is
flawed, would be the same as someone in mathematics constantly posting
that 2 + 2 is not 4.

To trash on Special Relativity means we throw out the Maxwell
Equations, and we throw out the Dirac Equation and by doing so, we
throw out Quantum Mechanics.

Of course, the sci newsgroups are freedom of speech, so I suppose we
have enough room in the sci newsgroups to tolerate these anti-physics
posters who know little to nothing about physics.

If KW and PV are motivated to rag on Einstein, then all they need to
do is ragg on
Einstein's General Relativity and his penchant for stealing the works
of others without proper citations. There is some evidence that even
Einstein's early publications were due mostly to the ideas of his
first wife, rather than Einstein himself, since after 1905 when he
broke up with his first wife who was a physicist
in her own right, that Einstein never really had any more science
discoveries of note.
So if you want to ragg on Einstein, there is plenty of material to do
that, but at least, for the sake of Physics, stop trying to ragg on
Special Relativity which only makes you look worse than a science
fool.

So if you want to rag on Einstein, there is plenty to rag about. Such
as these:
(a) lost every fight over physics with Bohr
(b) Einstein failed to realize Quantum Mechanics was true
(c) lost the EPR fight in which Bell would prove Bohr was correct
(d) General Relativity is false
(e) Special Relativity is true but then Einstein stole the credit
which belonged
to Lorentz and Poincare

(f) Einstein failed to properly give credit and citations to E = mc^2
(g) Einstein stole much of Bose statistics in an era when science
publishing is
vastly suppressive
(h) Einstein's first wife Mileva Maric perhaps had the lionshare of
the physics insights
for Einstein's 1905 papers.

So there is plenty to rag about Einstein, and to show that his
contributions to physics were
not major. And that the works of Bohr and quantum physicists and then
Dirac and Bell were
major.

So stop this physics nonsense that Special Relativity is flawed.
Special Relativity is simply
a feature of the Maxwell Equations, and your continual ranting that SR
is flawed only exposes
you as a nonscientist.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "In Maxwell's theory, a light wave in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c, with respect to the ether. So
measuring the speed of a light beam gives observers an easy way to
determine their motion in the ether. If they find the light to move at
c, the observers are at rest in the ether. If they find the light
frozen, they are moving at c in the ether. Since observers can
determine their absolute motion, the theory violates the principle of
relativity. The alternative theory that Einstein began to pursue was
an "emission theory." In such a theory, the speed of light in vacuo is
still c. But it is not c with respect to the ether; it is c with
respect to the source that emits the light. In such a theory,
observing the speed of a light beam tells observers nothing about
their absolute motion. It only reveals their motion with respect to
the source that emitted the light. If they find the beam to propagate
at c, the observers are at rest with respect to the emitter. If they
find the beam to be frozen, they are fleeing from the source at c. In
general, observers can only ascertain their relative velocity with
respect to the source. A distinctive property of this emission theory
is that there is no single velocity of light; the velocity will vary
according to the velocity of the emitter.
(...) That fact, presumably encouraged Einstein to persist in his
efforts to find a serviceable emission theory. Einstein persisted for
years, as he recalled in a 1920 recollection (Einstein, 1920):
Einstein: "The difficulty to be overcome lay in the constancy of the
velocity of light in a vacuum, which I first believed had to be given
up. Only after years of [jahrelang] groping did I notice that the
difficulty lay in the arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts."
Eventually Einstein did give up on an emission theory. There is an
indication that the struggle with the emission theory was long and
arduous."

The struggle was "long and arduous" and continued up to 1915 because
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (which
is the true antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-
light postulate) was equivalent to the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2)
showing how the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
potential. This latter equation was explicitly used by Einstein in the
period 1907-1915; in 1960 it was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka
experiment:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html
"The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details
but in principle it is very simple. Photons of a precisely determined
wavelength were emitted at the top and bottom of the 22.5-meter-high
Jefferson Tower on the Harvard campus. When the photons from the top
of the tower were measured at the bottom, their wavelengths were
decreased (blue-shifted) by a small amount; and when photons from the
bottom were measured at the top, their wavelengths were increased (red-
shifted) by the same amount. Proponents of the theory of General
Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these
results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all
equally correct.
(...) In the drawing of tower #1, the photons are emitted with a
wavelength of exactly one (=1). As they travel through the proposed
gravitational "field" at the constant velocity of C, they interact
with it so that the descending photons acquire mass, momentum and
energy from the field and the ascending photons transfer mass,
momentum and energy to the field. Thus the intrinsic wavelengths of
the photons gradually change as they move through the field. The main
problem with this explanation lies in the conceptualization of a
physical process by which mass, momentum and energy could be either
added to or subtracted from a photon without changing its velocity or
angular momentum.
(...) In the drawing of tower #2, the photons are emitted at a
wavelength of exactly one (=1) that remains constant as they move
through the gravitational "field." However, as they move thorough this
field, the photons "fall" toward the earth like any other material
body, so that the descending photons move at speeds increasingly
greater than C, and the ascending photons move at decreasing speeds of
less than C. During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10^(-8)s)
the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and
the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s. The
red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts in which both source and
observer are in the same inertial reference frame and each photon is
in a different inertial reference frame. The shifts occur because the
ascending photons arrive at the observer at a relative velocity of
less than C and the descending photons arrive at a velocity greater
than C. This change in the photons' velocity will produce shifts in
their wavelengths of the measured value of 2.5x10^(-15).
(...) In the drawing of tower #3, it is proposed that gravity causes
clocks at the bottom of the tower to run slower than clocks at the
top. This causes the emitter to take more time to produce a photon and
thus increase its wavelength by 2.5 x 10^(-15). The faster clock at
the top of the tower makes the emitter produce its photons in shorter
time intervals and with shorter wavelengths. While all photons move at
exactly C in this example, the observer at the top of the tower would
measure their velocity to be less than C and the observer at the
bottom of the tower would measure their velocity to be greater than C.
This is due to their clocks running at different rates."

Einsteiniana's three-equivalent-and-equally-correct-explanations
camouflage has an Achilles heel: The second explanation ("the photons
"fall" toward the earth like any other material body") is given by
Newton's emission theory and contradicts Einstein's theory. Einstein's
general relativity predicts that, as photons "fall" toward the earth,
their acceleration is two times greater than the acceleration of other
material bodies:

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."

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."

Therefore, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed Newton's emission
theory of light and refuted both Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-
of-light postulate and the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by
Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "In Maxwell's theory, a light wave in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c, with respect to the ether. So
measuring the speed of a light beam gives observers an easy way to
determine their motion in the ether. If they find the light to move at
c, the observers are at rest in the ether. If they find the light
frozen, they are moving at c in the ether. Since observers can
determine their absolute motion, the theory violates the principle of
relativity. The alternative theory that Einstein began to pursue was
an "emission theory." In such a theory, the speed of light in vacuo is
still c. But it is not c with respect to the ether; it is c with
respect to the source that emits the light. In such a theory,
observing the speed of a light beam tells observers nothing about
their absolute motion. It only reveals their motion with respect to
the source that emitted the light. If they find the beam to propagate
at c, the observers are at rest with respect to the emitter. If they
find the beam to be frozen, they are fleeing from the source at c. In
general, observers can only ascertain their relative velocity with
respect to the source. A distinctive property of this emission theory
is that there is no single velocity of light; the velocity will vary
according to the velocity of the emitter.
(...) That fact, presumably encouraged Einstein to persist in his
efforts to find a serviceable emission theory. Einstein persisted for
years, as he recalled in a 1920 recollection (Einstein, 1920):
Einstein: "The difficulty to be overcome lay in the constancy of the
velocity of light in a vacuum, which I first believed had to be given
up. Only after years of [jahrelang] groping did I notice that the
difficulty lay in the arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts."
Eventually Einstein did give up on an emission theory. There is an
indication that the struggle with the emission theory was long and
arduous."

The struggle was "long and arduous" and continued up to 1915 because
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (which
is the true antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-
light postulate) was equivalent to the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2)
showing how the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
potential. This latter equation was explicitly used by Einstein in the
period 1907-1915; in 1960 it was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka
experiment:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html
"The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details
but in principle it is very simple. Photons of a precisely determined
wavelength were emitted at the top and bottom of the 22.5-meter-high
Jefferson Tower on the Harvard campus. When the photons from the top
of the tower were measured at the bottom, their wavelengths were
decreased (blue-shifted) by a small amount; and when photons from the
bottom were measured at the top, their wavelengths were increased (red-
shifted) by the same amount. Proponents of the theory of General
Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these
results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all
equally correct.
(...) In the drawing of tower #1, the photons are emitted with a
wavelength of exactly one (=1). As they travel through the proposed
gravitational "field" at the constant velocity of C, they interact
with it so that the descending photons acquire mass, momentum and
energy from the field and the ascending photons transfer mass,
momentum and energy to the field. Thus the intrinsic wavelengths of
the photons gradually change as they move through the field. The main
problem with this explanation lies in the conceptualization of a
physical process by which mass, momentum and energy could be either
added to or subtracted from a photon without changing its velocity or
angular momentum.
(...) In the drawing of tower #2, the photons are emitted at a
wavelength of exactly one (=1) that remains constant as they move
through the gravitational "field." However, as they move thorough this
field, the photons "fall" toward the earth like any other material
body, so that the descending photons move at speeds increasingly
greater than C, and the ascending photons move at decreasing speeds of
less than C. During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10^(-8)s)
the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and
the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s. The
red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts in which both source and
observer are in the same inertial reference frame and each photon is
in a different inertial reference frame. The shifts occur because the
ascending photons arrive at the observer at a relative velocity of
less than C and the descending photons arrive at a velocity greater
than C. This change in the photons' velocity will produce shifts in
their wavelengths of the measured value of 2.5x10^(-15).
(...) In the drawing of tower #3, it is proposed that gravity causes
clocks at the bottom of the tower to run slower than clocks at the
top. This causes the emitter to take more time to produce a photon and
thus increase its wavelength by 2.5 x 10^(-15). The faster clock at
the top of the tower makes the emitter produce its photons in shorter
time intervals and with shorter wavelengths. While all photons move at
exactly C in this example, the observer at the top of the tower would
measure their velocity to be less than C and the observer at the
bottom of the tower would measure their velocity to be greater than C.
This is due to their clocks running at different rates."

Einsteiniana's three-equivalent-and-equally-correct-explanations
camouflage has an Achilles heel: The second explanation ("the photons
"fall" toward the earth like any other material body") is given by
Newton's emission theory and contradicts Einstein's theory. Einstein's
general relativity predicts that, as photons "fall" toward the earth,
their acceleration is two times greater than the acceleration of other
material bodies:

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."

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."

Therefore, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed Newton's emission
theory of light and refuted both Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-
of-light postulate and the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by
Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev