THE SHORTEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY

[Pentcho Valev]

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was unequivocally consistent
with the thesis "The speed of light varies with the speed of the light
source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light" and inconsistent with the antithesis "The
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light
source" (Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Then FitzGerald,
Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized the reality (introduced length
contraction, time dilation etc.) so as to make the Michelson-Morley
experiment inconsistent with the thesis and consistent with the
antithesis.

In 1907 Einstein realized that the speed of light varied with the
gravitational potential V. This meant that three equivalent equations:
c'=c(1+V/c^2), c'=c+v and f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is the frequency of
light, were either simultaneously valid or simultaneously wrong. In
1960 Pound and Rebka experimentally confirmed the validity of the
third equation but Einstein had known all along that all three
equations were valid and had even explicitly etablished c'=c(1+V/c^2)
in 1911. The history of relativity after 1911 can be characterized in
this way:

"Development of multilayered camouflage of the validity of the thesis
c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light"

In the end, the antithesis became "the linchpin that holds the whole
range of modern physics theories together":

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Uncle Al]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was unequivocally consistent
with the thesis "The speed of light varies with the speed of the light
source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light" and inconsistent with the antithesis "The
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light
source" (Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Then FitzGerald,
Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized the reality (introduced length
contraction, time dilation etc.) so as to make the Michelson-Morley
experiment inconsistent with the thesis and consistent with the
antithesis.

[snip rest of lying crap]

1) SLAC, FermiLab, CERN
2) GPS
3) http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
4) idiot

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was unequivocally consistent
with the thesis "The speed of light varies with the speed of the light
source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light" and inconsistent with the antithesis "The
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light
source" (Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Then FitzGerald,
Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized the reality (introduced length
contraction, time dilation etc.) so as to make the Michelson-Morley
experiment inconsistent with the thesis and consistent with the
antithesis.
In 1907 Einstein realized that the speed of light varied with the
c'=c(1+V/c^2), c'=c+v and f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is the frequency of
light, were either simultaneously valid or simultaneously wrong. In
1960 Pound and Rebka experimentally confirmed the validity of the
third equation but Einstein had known all along that all three
equations were valid and had even explicitly etablished c'=c(1+V/c^2)
in 1911. The history of relativity after 1911 can be characterized in
"Development of multilayered camouflage of the validity of the thesis
c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light"
In the end, the antithesis became "the linchpin that holds the whole
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Early Einsteinians (including Einstein) were relatively honest from
time to time:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
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://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://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."

Today's Einsteinians are absolutely dishonest:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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 Newtons 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...)"

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-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...."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!....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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The blatant lies of Postscientism (Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie
big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it"):

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252878/Special-relativity
Encyclopædia Britannica: "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. This contradicts common sense; it
implies, for instance, that both a train moving at the speed of light
and a light beam emitted from the train arrive at a point farther
along the track at the same instant. Nevertheless, Einstein made the
constancy of the speed of light for all observers a postulate of his
new theory. As a second postulate, he required that the laws of
physics have the same form for all observers. Then Einstein extended
his postulates to their logical conclusions to form special
relativity."

Will the scientific community ever be able to realize that in 1887 the
Michelson-Morley experiment was INCONSISTENT with "the constancy of
the speed of light for all observers" and consistent with the
antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
light? Is there any hope?

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
The blatant lies of Postscientism (Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie
big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252878/Special-relativity
Encyclopædia Britannica: "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. This contradicts common sense; it
implies, for instance, that both a train moving at the speed of light
and a light beam emitted from the train arrive at a point farther
along the track at the same instant. Nevertheless, Einstein made the
constancy of the speed of light for all observers a postulate of his
new theory. As a second postulate, he required that the laws of
physics have the same form for all observers. Then Einstein extended
his postulates to their logical conclusions to form special
relativity."
Will the scientific community ever be able to realize that in 1887 the
Michelson-Morley experiment was INCONSISTENT with "the constancy of
the speed of light for all observers" and consistent with the
antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
light? Is there any hope?

In the era of Postscientism heretics are often just as confused as
ordinary Einsteinians:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
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 Einstein’s 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
Relativity’s 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.
"The failure of nineteenth century attempts to detect the earth’s
motion
through the aether prompted a crisis in physics which compelled men
like
FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincare to reject the Newtonian
assumption that the Galilean transformation equations were sufficient
to
obtain invariant laws about observed phenomena in electrodynamics and
mechanics and to adopt instead the relativistic Lorentz
transformations. (...) Unfortunately for Einstein’s Special Theory,
however, its epistemological
and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable,
unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical. (...) Apart from leaving unaddressed
the epistemological and semantic presuppositions of STR, there is an
even stronger factor behind physicists' unwillingness to abandon the
Special Theory. The Special Theory is a part of orthodox quantum field
theory (QFT) (quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics),
which aims to unify the Special Theory with quantum mechanics.
Physicists would be at a loss as to how to proceed if they rejected
the Special Theory as unjustified, since they (for the most part)
believe that this would require them to reject QFT. In the light of
this dependence on Special Relativity, physicists are not likely to
abandon it unless it is observationally disconfirmed and there is an
observationally adequate theory available to replace it. In fact,
there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the
Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely
Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Why Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will never be abandoned:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0703/0703751v1.pdf
George F R Ellis: "The overall message is that you can’t just alter
the speed of light in one or two equations and leave the rest of
physics unchanged. It plays a central role in modern physics [4],
particularly because it is the invariant limiting speed of the Lorentz
group and so is built into any variables that transform under that
group, but also because electromagnetism is central to many physical
effects; in particular, light is central to measurement. On the
standard view, these various roles are tightly integrated together in
a coherent package in which the speed of light does not vary. Any
viable VSL theory has to propose a similarly integrated viable
alternative to the whole package of physical equations and consequent
effects (kinematical and dynamical) dependent on c. You can’t just
tinker with a few bits of the whole."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). 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."

Sooner or later Einsteiniana's teachers will have to answer the simple
question: The gravitational redshift factor 1+phi/c^2 experimentally
confirmed by Pound and Rebka is consistent with:

(A) Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) GIVEN BY NEWTON'S
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT?

(B) Einstein's 1955 (in fact, it was devised in 1915) camouflage c'=c
(1+2phi/c^2)?

Then Einsteiniana's teachers will have to explain why they have been
so silent about this simple problem for so long.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). 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."
Sooner or later Einsteiniana's teachers will have to answer the simple
question: The gravitational redshift factor 1+phi/c^2 experimentally
(A) Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) GIVEN BY NEWTON'S
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT?
(B) Einstein's 1955 (in fact, it was devised in 1915) camouflage c'=c
(1+2phi/c^2)?
Then Einsteiniana's teachers will have to explain why they have been
so silent about this simple problem for so long.

Einsteiniana's teachers will also have to explain why they have
established a schizophrenic atmosphere in which the falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is constantly hinted at by teachers
themselves but any criticism coming from heretics is fiercely
persecuted:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/116
"In addition, some quantum-spacetime models predict a particular
relationship between the speed of photons in gamma rays and their
energy. There have already been tantalizing hints of these effects. In
2007, for instance, the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope collaboration based
on La Palma in the Canary Islands announced that they had measured a 4-
minute time difference between the arrival of high and low-energy
gamma rays released at the same time in a flare from the Markarian 501
galaxy, some half a billion light years away (Physics Letters B, 668,
253-257, 2008). Standard theories suggest that the photons should have
arrived simultaneously. Along with Lee Smolin at the Perimeter
Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Amelino-Camelia has begun analyzing
new gamma-ray data from NASA’s Fermi Telescope, launched in June 2008
(see image above right). The new data show similar delays in the
arrival times of photons, which they believe will help physicists
discriminate between these models."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&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.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"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
***@yahoo.com

[Don Stockbauer]

THE SHORTEST HISTORY OF RELATIVITY

*********************************************

"I'm sorry, Mrs. Einstein, little Albert was stillborn."

[hanson]

"Pentcho Valev" wrote:
..in 2007, via the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope they had
measured a 4-minute time difference between the arrival
of high and low-energy gamma rays released at the same
time in a flare from the Markarian 501 galaxy... Standard
theories suggest that the photons should have arrived
simultaneously.
hanson wrote:
How did "they" know that both, the hi & lo, frequencies
were generated and release at the same time? How did
they measure that?... Or is that simultaneity simply an
assumption born out of theory, Einstein's or other's?
The only prolems with a variable "c" is that it will change
the numerical value of most fundamental physical constants
to the locality or environment wherein "c" is different from
the DEFINED fixed value of "c". A variable "c" of course
will make a mockery out of the entire construct of physic
including Einstein's crap.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson.
--------------- whole original tripe here: ---------------

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). 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."
Sooner or later Einsteiniana's teachers will have to answer the simple
question: The gravitational redshift factor 1+phi/c^2 experimentally
(A) Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) GIVEN BY NEWTON'S
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT?
(B) Einstein's 1955 (in fact, it was devised in 1915) camouflage c'=c
(1+2phi/c^2)?
Then Einsteiniana's teachers will have to explain why they have been
so silent about this simple problem for so long.

Einsteiniana's teachers will also have to explain why they have
established a schizophrenic atmosphere in which the falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is constantly hinted at by teachers
themselves but any criticism coming from heretics is fiercely
persecuted:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/116
"In addition, some quantum-spacetime models predict a particular
relationship between the speed of photons in gamma rays and their
energy. There have already been tantalizing hints of these effects. In
2007, for instance, the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope collaboration based
on La Palma in the Canary Islands announced that they had measured a 4-
minute time difference between the arrival of high and low-energy
gamma rays released at the same time in a flare from the Markarian 501
galaxy, some half a billion light years away (Physics Letters B, 668,
253-257, 2008). Standard theories suggest that the photons should have
arrived simultaneously. Along with Lee Smolin at the Perimeter
Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Amelino-Camelia has begun analyzing
new gamma-ray data from NASA’s Fermi Telescope, launched in June 2008
(see image above right). The new data show similar delays in the
arrival times of photons, which they believe will help physicists
discriminate between these models."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&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.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"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
***@yahoo.com