SPEED OF LIGHT IN GRAVITY : NEWTON RIGHT, EINSTEIN WRONG

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

Crucial questions:

c' = ?

L' = ?

Newton's emission theory of light says:

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

L' = c'/f' = L

Einstein's general relativity says:

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

L' = c'/f' L

The increase in wavelength (L'L) implied by general relativity is obviously absurd, which means that the Pound-Rebka experiment has actually confirmed Newton and refuted Einstein.

References showing that, according to Einstein's general relativity, in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in conformity with the equation c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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. (...) 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
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=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. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.6986.pdf
J.D. Franson, Physics Department, University of Maryland: "According to general relativity, the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is given by:

c = c0(1 + 2phi/c0^2) (1)

where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame."

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 2:43:00 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):



f = c/L



An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':



f' = c'/L'



Crucial questions:



c' = ?



L' = ?



Newton's emission theory of light says:



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



L' = c'/f' = L



Einstein's general relativity says:



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



L' = c'/f' L



The increase in wavelength (L'L) implied by general relativity is obviously absurd, which means that the Pound-Rebka experiment has actually confirmed Newton and refuted Einstein.



References showing that, according to Einstein's general relativity, in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in conformity with the equation c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):



http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."



http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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. (...) 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

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=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. (....) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."



http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.6986.pdf

J.D. Franson, Physics Department, University of Maryland: "According to general relativity, the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is given by:



c = c0(1 + 2phi/c0^2) (1)


where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame."


Pentcho Valev

If gravity pulls light, then perhaps all photons must be entangled.

The Albert Einstein Institute admitting that the gravitational redshift (measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment) is due to the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

Inadvertent confirmations of Newton's emission theory of light (and refutations of Einstein's relativity):

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://bouteloup.pierre.free.fr/vulg/relge.pdf
"Considérons une fusée posée sur le sol terrestre, donc immobile dans un champ de gravitation. Déjà, à cause du principe d'équivalence, la lumière tombe vers le bas avec la même accélération qu'un caillou, vue par un observateur immobile dans la fusée."

Pentcho Valev

The following three texts can cozily coexist only in Divine Albert's world:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev