NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then
quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 27, 9:10 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then
quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

A light source emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to the
source) and wavelength L. A receiver moving with speed v relative to
the source receives light with frequency f' (Doppler effect), speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein's breathtaking alternative:

f'=f((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2); c'=c; L'=L/((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2)

The wavelength is determined by the light source so this dependence of
the wavelength on the speed of the receiver (if the receiver starts
accelerating the wavelength should start changing accordingly) is one
of the silliest corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Perhaps only length contraction, twin paradox etc. corollaries are
sillier, e.g. those according to which the long train is short (if
trapped inside a short tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if
trapped inside a 40m long barn and Einsteinians have forgotten to
reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly"), the bug is both dead
and alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 30, 9:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:10 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then
quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

A light source emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to the
source) and wavelength L. A receiver moving with speed v relative to
the source receives light with frequency f' (Doppler effect), speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein's breathtaking alternative:

f'=f((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2); c'=c; L'=L/((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2)

The wavelength is determined by the light source so this dependence of
the wavelength on the speed of the receiver (if the receiver starts
accelerating the wavelength should start changing accordingly) is one
of the silliest corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Perhaps only length contraction, twin paradox etc. corollaries are
sillier, e.g. those according to which the long train is short (if
trapped inside a short tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if
trapped inside a 40m long barn and Einsteinians have forgotten to
reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly"), the bug is both dead
and alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev


Einstein never worked a real job or much less ever had a barn with
doors to deal with. So what the hell do we expect?

Of course the Zionist puppet Einstein is going to obfuscate to
whatever extent it takes. Wouldn't you?

~ BG

The Juggler who made our world:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007...made-our-world
The Man Who Made Our World
"In his 1905 papers, Einstein actually used two apparently
contradictory interpretations of the nature of light. In the paper on
light quanta, Einstein had argued forcefully for the return to
Newton's particulate conception of light. Yet in the same year, in his
development of special relativity, Einstein had rejected a particulate
emission theory of light and had used the traditional Maxwell wave
theory. This STRIKING ABILITY TO JUGGLE two viewpoints apparently at
odds was characteristic of Einstein's thought..."

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ial-relativity
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA TEACHING LIES: "The fact that the speed of
light is the same for all observers is inexplicable in ordinary terms.
If a passenger in a train moving at 100 km per hour shoots an arrow in
the train’s direction of motion at 200 km per hour, a trackside
observer would measure the speed of the arrow as the sum of the two
speeds, or 300 km per hour (see figure). In analogy, if the train
moves at the speed of light and a passenger shines a laser in the same
direction, then common sense indicates that a trackside observer
should see the light moving at the sum of the two speeds, or twice the
speed of light (6 × 108 metres per second). While such a law of
addition of velocities is valid in classical mechanics, THE MICHELSON-
MORLEY EXPERIMENT SHOWED THAT LIGHT DOES NOT OBEY THIS LAW."

Einsteinians who are somewhat less dishonest than those who have
written Encyclopaedia Britannica:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

Pentcho Valev

Two Einsteins confuse Einsteinians:

The Albert Einstein of our generation clearly accepts Newton's
emission theory of light but then finds it suitable to confuse other
Einsteinians:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton’s theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

The original Einstein also believed in and even used Newton's emission
theory of light but confused Einsteinians in a different way:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 30, 9:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:10 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then
quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' 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 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

A light source emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to the
source) and wavelength L. A receiver moving with speed v relative to
the source receives light with frequency f' (Doppler effect), speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein's breathtaking alternative:

f'=f((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2); c'=c; L'=L/((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))^(1/2)

The wavelength is determined by the light source so this dependence of
the wavelength on the speed of the receiver (if the receiver starts
accelerating the wavelength should start changing accordingly) is one
of the silliest corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Perhaps only length contraction, twin paradox etc. corollaries are
sillier, e.g. those according to which the long train is short (if
trapped inside a short tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if
trapped inside a 40m long barn and Einsteinians have forgotten to
reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly"), the bug is both dead
and alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev


Perhaps in the real universe that's somewhere hidden within the Great
Attractor is where photons of nonzero mass are in charge of all things
quantum and of relativity to boot.

~ BG