SPEED OR WAVELENGTH VARIES WITH POSITION?

In his 1920 "Relativity" Einstein declares that, in a gravitational
field, the speed of light "varies with position" and today's
hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult find that this declaration "is
perfectly valid and makes good physical sense":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920
book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Clearly, apart from being variable in general relativity, an
interpretation that "is perfectly valid and makes good physical
sense", the speed of light is also constant in general relativity, and
this interpretation "is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense"
as well. The only problem comes from the formula

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

which is officially accepted in Einstein criminal cult. The frequency
does vary with position in a gravitational field (gravitational
redshift) and this is confirmed experimentally. If the formula is
correct, and if the speed of light is constant (does not vary with
position), then the wavelength must vary with position:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by
(1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB =
(1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the
wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...star-size.html
"But light from the disc also loses energy - and is shifted to longer,
redder wavelengths - because it has to work hard to escape the
gravitational pull of the dense neutron star. This effect, called
gravitational redshift, is predicted by Einstein's theory of general
relativity, which posits that gravity bends the fabric of space-time."

So Einsteinians have one last step to make: the intepretation
according to which, in a gravitational field, the wavelength "varies
with position", an interpretation that "is perfectly valid and makes
good physical sense", should be placed next to Einstein's original
intepretation according to which, in a gravitational field, the speed
of light "varies with position", an intepretation that "is perfectly
valid and makes good physical sense" as well. I suggest textbooks
should first give Einstein's original intepretation and then the
alternative one, e.g. in the following way:

In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he
wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law
of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes
one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of
relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature
of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation
of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a
vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is
not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense.

In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he could
have written: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity,
the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special
theory of relativity [. . .] can claim an unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the wavelength
varies with position." This interpretation is also perfectly valid
and makes good physical sense.

Pentcho Valev

The journal Nature would not publish anything that could clarify the
variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field and the
respective implications but it can successfully confuse the problem by
advancing the old red herring: Was the sycophant Eddington innocent or
was he guilty:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html

Pentcho Valev