ONLY ONE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

It seems the UK is the only place in the world where crimestop is not
absolute and the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-
speed-of-light postulate are questioned from time to time:

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/exp...ory-everything
Roland Michel: "Consider the famous "Twin Paradox" thought experiment,
where a speeding astronaut returns to Earth to discover he is much
younger than his Earthbound twin. A logical flaw in this paradox claim
has been reluctantly but increasingly acknowledged over the years,
since “everything is relative” in Special Relativity theory, so either
twin could be considered speeding or stationary, removing any absolute
age difference. But, should this flaw be pointed out, focus is
invariably switched away from Special Relativity since only the
astronaut underwent actual physical acceleration in his travels, which
is instead the realm of General Relativity. This switch is generally
presented as a resolution to the issue - but is it? First, this switch
to General Relativity invalidates the still often-claimed support for
Special Relativity from both this famous thought experiment and from
all related physical experiments, such as speeding particles in
accelerators, or atomic clocks on circling airplanes or satellites.
Yet this fact is typically neither discussed nor even acknowledged,
leaving many with the impression that the Twin Paradox and related
physical experiments still fully apply to and support Special
Relativity theory. (...) So, according to both the "everything is
relative" aspect of Special Relativity and the Principle of
Equivalence in General Relativity there would appear to be no such
phenomenon as "relativistic time dilation", despite widespread
citation of iconic theoretical and experimental claims to the
contrary."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
What is wrong with relativity?
G. BURNISTON BROWN
Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18
(March, 1967) pp.7177
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"This first appearance of what has become known as time dilation in
Einstein's work requires careful attention. In particular, anyone who
assumes that the special theory deals only with uniform movement in a
straight line and is thus a precisely delineated subset of the later
general theory, will wish to explore why Einstein extends his
conclusions to polygonal and circular movements. It is by no means "at
once apparent" that what is true for a straight line is true for a
polygon, nor that what has been "proved" for a polygon applies to a
circle. The principle of relativity introduced at the outset of the
1905 paper implicitly limited the special theory to reference frames
moving at a constant speed in a straight line with respect to one
another. In later work, Einstein explicitly stated that the special
theory applied only to a reference frame "in a state of uniform
rectilinear and non rotary motion" in respect of a second reference
frame, in contrast to the general theory that dealt with reference
frames regardless of their state of motion (Einstein 1920, 61).
Acceleration, therefore, would appear to be the province of the
general theory. A polygon, however, would seem to necessarily involve
acceleration whenever there is a abrupt alteration in the direction of
travel. Even more confusingly, a circular path, far from allowing
movement at a "constant velocity", has a velocity that continually
changes. Einstein, it is argued, wished to minimise the significance
of acceleration - as he did not mention acceleration at all in the
passage, he could hardly be said to do otherwise (Essen 1971, 13).
With respect to the transition from the straight line to the polygon,
this assumption is corroborated by comments Einstein made in 1911 when
he said that the larger the polygon the less significant the impact of
a sudden change of direction would be.
Einstein 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform
motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a
jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The
sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the
position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is
moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward
motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller
must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." (Einstein et
al. 1993, 354)
(...) The argument that the prediction of time difference between a
moving and a stationary clock violates the principle of relativity is
well known. Certainly, it must have become known to Einstein, for in
1918 he created a dialogue in which "Kritikus" voiced exactly this
objection (Einstein 1918). In response to this criticism, Einstein
underwent a volte-face, reversing his reasoning in 1905 and 1911. The
sudden change in direction of the moving clock, far from having
unknown effects that needed to be minimised, was now said to provide
the entire explanation for the change. Instead of imagining a moving
clock travelling in a huge polygon or circle to make sudden changes in
direction as insignificant as possible or the journey as smooth as
possible, Einstein imagined an out and back journey. He then explained
that the slow-down in the moving clock occurred during the sudden jolt
when it went into reverse. (...) Given Einsteins argument in 1918, it
seems inescapable that his 1905 prediction of time dilation was not,
in fact, a "peculiar consequence" of his forgoing account of special
relativity (Einstein 1923, 49). When it is also remembered that in
1904 Lorentz deduced the existence of "local time", it is reasonable
to conclude that the prediction that the clocks would end up showing
different times can be reached without entering into Einstein's
reasoning on the special theory at all. The supporters of Einstein,
however, generally maintain that one needs to move beyond the special
theory to the general theory to understand why the times shown by the
clocks would be different. However, as Einstein's prediction preceded
the general theory, this argument is problematic (Lovejoy 1931, 159;
Essen 1971, 14). It has been seen that: (a) in 1911 Einstein
explicitly rules out the ability of the special theory of relativity
to say what happened if the moving clock suddenly changed direction,
and (b) in 1918 Einstein tacitly admitted that his explanation of the
clock paradox in 1905 was incorrect by transforming the polygonal or
circular journey of the moving clock into an out and back journey. If
the general theory is necessary to explain the clock paradox, then
Einstein must have (a) predicted the effects of acceleration in 1905
even though he did not incorporate them into his theory for another
decade, and (b) hidden his intuition by describing a journey that
discounted their significance. (...) There is, nonetheless, some
divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream
scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority
suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox
because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it
cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe
that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because
they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to
suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction
ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction,
considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is
not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that
( c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time
dilation. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different
rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how
this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is
particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a
number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects
of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite
apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between
relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any
attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional
physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response
to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that
Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so
difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument.
In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly
complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory
can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow
understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular
accounts of the theory. The claim that the theory of relativity is
logically consistent for reasons that are too complex for non-
professionals to grasp is not only convenient, but is rhetorically
unassailable - as whenever a critic disproves one argument, the
professional physicist can allude to another more abstruse one.
Einstein's transformation of the clock paradox from a purported
expression of the special theory to a purported expression of the much
more complicated general theory is one example of such a defence. A
more recent example is found in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's
scornful account of Henri Bergson's attempt to investigate the clock/
twin paradox. Like "Kritikus", Bergson argued that the asymmetric
outcome of the paradox was incompatible with the principle of
relativity. Like Einstein, Sokal and Bricmont explain that Bergson has
failed to recognise the asymmetric forces of acceleration at work.
They go on to claim that the special theory tells us what happens
under these circumstances and that the general theory only laboriously
leads to the same conclusion. The suggestion that to vindicate this
claim would be laborious functions in the same way as Einstein's
elusive "calculations"; that is, it is not an explanation but an
explanation-stopper. Sokal and Bricmont do not demonstrate how either
the special theory or the general theory explain time dilation. Nor do
they explain how their claim can be reconciled with Einstein
explicitly limiting the special theory to objects travelling at a
uniform velocity, nor account for why the circular journey of 1905
became the out and back journey of 1918. (...) Einstein's theory of
relativity fails to reconcile the contradictory principles on which it
is based. Rather than combining incompatible assumptions into an
integrated whole, the theory allows the adept to step between
incompatible assumptions in a way that hides these inconsistencies.
The clock paradox is symptomatic of Einstein's failure, and its
purported resolution is illustrative of the techniques that can be
used to mask this failure. To uncover to the logical contradictions in
the theory of relativity presents no very difficult task. However, the
theory is impervious to such attacks as it is shielded by a
professional constituency of supporters whose interests and authority
are bound up in maintaining its inflated claims. Relativity theory, in
short, is an ideology."

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different
rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one
twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to
exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by
common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern
atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all
current developments in physical science, theoretical and
experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the
universe. To continue to use the theory without discrimination,
therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of
nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable
scale... (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those
[Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics,
displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the
special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and
therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest
- call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or
absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION,
INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ. It
remains to be determined, by a valid experimental determination of THE
TRUE RELATION OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT TO THAT OF ITS SOURCE, which of
these alternatives is the true one. In the meantime, the fiction of
"space-time" as an objective element of nature, and the associated
pseudo-concepts such as "time-dilation", that violate "saving common
sense", should be discharged from physics and philosophy..."

Pentcho Valev

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 Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The thorny path towards Newton's emission theory of light:

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."

Pentcho Valev

On May 6 Pentcho Valev wrote:
The thorny path towards Newton's emission theory of light:

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."

Lee Smolin is by no means the cleverest Einsteinian - he does not even
know that Newton's emission theory of light predicts light deflection
in a gravitational field:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

However John Norton IS the cleverest Einsteinian and if he goes
towards Newton's emission theory of light, then all Einsteinians
should go in that direction:

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."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians know no limits when it comes to camouflaging the
falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate and
extracting career and money from some variable-speed-of-light "heresy"
at the same time:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/150
"If we give up the idea that time exists and the speed of light is
constant at the fundamental level, then we could find a theory of
quantum gravity. (...) Merging the vastly different laws that govern
the macro and the micro has been a huge challenge for physics. Now,
John Donoghue, a physicist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, thinks he may have the answer. Perhaps, he argues, the
familiar view of spacetime as a four-dimensional fabric, which we
inherited from Einstein, is not fundamental, but only emerges on large
scales - just like our picture of a solid and symmetrical Rubik's cube
disappears and re-appears depending on the perspective that we look at
it. If he is correct, physicists may have to rethink one of their more
cherished beliefs: that the speed of light has always been constant.
Donoghue is aware that his idea of a varying universal speed limit -
famously set by Einstein over a century ago - goes against the
physics' grain. "This is a very nonstandard idea," he admits. "It
would really change 99.9 per cent of physics research." However,
there's good reason to think that our understanding of spacetime and,
in turn, the speed of light, may need to be rewritten."

Pentcho Valev

On May 7, 11:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinians know no limits when it comes to camouflaging the
falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate and
extracting career and money from some variable-speed-of-light "heresy"
at the same time:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/150
"If we give up the idea that time exists and the speed of light is
constant at the fundamental level, then we could find a theory of
quantum gravity. (...) Merging the vastly different laws that govern
the macro and the micro has been a huge challenge for physics. Now,
John Donoghue, a physicist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, thinks he may have the answer. Perhaps, he argues, the
familiar view of spacetime as a four-dimensional fabric, which we
inherited from Einstein, is not fundamental, but only emerges on large
scales - just like our picture of a solid and symmetrical Rubik's cube
disappears and re-appears depending on the perspective that we look at
it. If he is correct, physicists may have to rethink one of their more
cherished beliefs: that the speed of light has always been constant.
Donoghue is aware that his idea of a varying universal speed limit -
famously set by Einstein over a century ago - goes against the
physics' grain. "This is a very nonstandard idea," he admits. "It
would really change 99.9 per cent of physics research." However,
there's good reason to think that our understanding of spacetime and,
in turn, the speed of light, may need to be rewritten."

The Champions:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) The rest of my research work was
going well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find
that I had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is
the most desirable junior research position available in Britain,
perhaps anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten
years as well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever
you want. At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge,
and that it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved
big cities, so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top
university for theoretical physics."

http://roychristopher.com/joao-mague...tier-cosmology
"Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to
turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Magueijo is trying to pick
apart one of Einstein's most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the
speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/
second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern
physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has,
or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesn't buy it. His
VSL (Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be
energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that he's out of
his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from
Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and
is currently a professor at Imperial College, London."

http://www.lauralee.com/news/relativitychallenged.htm
Question: Jumping off a bandwagon is risky - surely you could have
committed career suicide by suggesting something as radical as a
variable speed of light?
Magueijo: That's true. Maybe I wouldn't have been so carefree if I
hadn't had this Royal Society fellowship: it gives a safety net for 10
years. You can go anywhere and do whatever you want as long as you're
productive.
Question: So you're free to be the angry young man of physics?
Magueijo: Maybe it comes across that I'm bitter and twisted, but if
you're reading a book, the body language is lost. You're talking to me
face to face: you can see I'm really playing with all this. I'm not an
angry young man, I'm just being honest. There's no hard feelings. I
may say offensive things, but everything is very good natured.
Question: So why should the speed of light vary?
Magueijo: It's more useful to turn that round. The issue is more why
should the speed of light be constant? The constancy of the speed of
light is the central thing in relativity but we have lots of problems
in theoretical physics, and these probably result from assuming that
relativity works all the time. Relativity must collapse at some
point...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too
restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said.
''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of
light.''

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten
By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
The Sunday Times - London
"A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

Pentcho Valev