RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS OR WITH ITSELF?

[Pentcho Valev]

From 1907 on Einstein claimes that, in a gravitational field, the
speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians
claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares).
In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light
in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of
light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

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."

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."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4
with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and
Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by
the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded
as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make
things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by
2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4
is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow
tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the
inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Pentcho Valev
From 1907 on Einstein claimes that, in a gravitational field, the
speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

"The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect,
is one of the four classic solar system tests of general relativity".

[Pentcho Valev]

Philosophers of science giving advice about inconsistent theories (IN
CAPITALS):

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/brhoads/www/book/chapt1.pdf
"Internal inconsistency is a defect in a theory that gives grounds for
seeking a better theory. Proving that a theory is inconsistent has the
same import as showing that it has false empirical consequences:
inconsistency guarantees that some part of the theory is false.
Unfortunately, this does not require that we throw out the entire
theory. Inconsistency only requires some modification in the theory,
and logic provides little guidance as to what modification is
appropriate. A classic example will illustrate the point. Special
relativity has two key postulates: the laws of physics are the same
for all frames of reference moving with constant relative velocities,
and the velocity of light is the same in all reference frames. Other
physicists besides Einstein contemplated the reconstruction of physics
on the basis of these two postulates, but abandoned the idea because
it seems easy to show that these postulates are mutually inconsistent.
Einstein notes the problem early in his first relativity paper, 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies', and announces that he will show
that these are only apparently inconsistent. He then argues that the
inconsistency actually requires a third proposition: whether two
events (at a distance from each other) are simultaneous is an
objective fact. Before Einstein's analysis, physicists had not
considered this claim to be a hypothesis subject to reconsideration,
and this is the hypothesis that Einstein rejects in order to eliminate
the inconsistency. There is an additional twist that we should note.
An inconsistent theory may be extremely useful if it is deployed with
sufficient care. The classic example here is Bohr's theory of the atom
which postulates that certain electron orbits are stable, but does so
in the context of classical electrodynamics which implies that no
orbits are stable. The theory's inconsistency was recognized as a
defect and this defect was eliminated by the new quantum theory of
Schrödinger and Heisenberg. But inconsistency is not a defect that
immediately blocks legitimate application of the theory. In general,
inconsistency is a formal defect in a theory, but THE DISCOVERY THAT A
THEORY IS INCONSISTENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC RESPONSE FROM
THEORISTS."

Theorists do follow the advice of course. Yet there are embarrassing
views:

http://labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics
"Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its supporters
have drawn on contradictory principles in a way that greatly expanded
their apparent ability to explain the universe. Most crazes die out
when it becomes obvious that they were overblown. The amazing thing
about Einstein's theory of relativity is that it has kept going. It is
built on contradictions, but these very contradictions means that
almost anything 'proves' that it is right. It is a bit like a theory
where you say 1 + 1 = 2, but also that 1+ 1 = 3."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

From John Michell's simple truth to Albert Einstein's schizophrenic
inconsistency:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon in 1796, using
Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and
who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that
light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was
then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the
amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the
Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general
relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down
and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of
light waves. (...) Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. The only way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911. He considered an accelerating box, and noted that
according to the special theory of relativity, the clock rate at the
bottom of the box was slower than the clock rate at the top. (...) The
changing rates of clocks allowed Einstein to conclude that light waves
change frequency as they move..."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed
of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim
the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In
1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in
order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of
light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

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."

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."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4
with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and
Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT
FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-
Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a
glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make
things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by
2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4
is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow
tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the
inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/9073/gravitational-redshift.html
"A frequency shifting of light to lower frequencies for sources
emitting light in a relatively strong gravitational field; also called
the Einstein shift. It means that light travelling away from a massive
body appears at a lower frequency (redshifted) than expected. The
redshift of light travelling away from Earth was first measured in
1961 by Robert Pound and Glen Rebka using the Mössbauer effect.
Interpreted as the faster running of clocks in regions of weaker
gravitational fields..."

Here Einsteiniana's teachers exercise themselves in crimestop, that
is, they stop short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of the
following dangerous thought:

DANGEROUS THOUGHT: "Interpreting the gravitational redshift as "the
faster running of clocks in regions of weaker gravitational fields" is
compatible with the assumption that the speed of light is CONSTANT in
a gravitational field. Yet Divine Albert has claimed all along that
the speed of light VARIES with the gravitational potential V.
Initially Divine Albert believed that the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given
by Newton's emission theory of light is correct, then continued to
believe so (after all, this is the only equation compatible with the
experimentally confirmed frequency shift) but, just in case, replaced
c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2)."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed
of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim
the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In
1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in
order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of
light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

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."

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."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4
with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and
Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT
FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-
Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a
glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make
things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by
2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

(A) 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

(B) 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory
involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4
is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow
tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the
inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"If relativity theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory
power enhances the real power and authority of theoretical physicists.
Precisely because Einstein’s theory is inconsistent, its exponents can
draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the
apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a
disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage
in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the
language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal
content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the
status of the group, giving them power over others through the
enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct
research and to exclude and marginalise dissent. (...) The argument
that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific
revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution
that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory,
very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an
ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special
theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum
mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining
simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of
the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try
and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist.
According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special
and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one
side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called
upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the
triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in
the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Pentcho Valev
If relativity theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory
power enhances the real power and authority of theoretical physicists.
Precisely because Einstein’s theory is inconsistent, its exponents can
draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the
apparent explanatory scope of the theory.

Relativity theory is self consistent and has no contradictions. If
fact, there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction
of relativity.

Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

[Huang]

Post by Pentcho Valev
From 1907 on Einstein claimes that, in a gravitational field, the
speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians
claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares).
In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light
in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational

WTF are you talking about ? Are you F'ing crazy ? Please just shut the
F up.

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip 138 lines of crap]

If GR is "compatible" with QFT, the claimant is an idiot.

Newton
c=infinity G=G h=0
Special Relativity
c=c G=0 h=0
General Relativity
c=c G=G h=0
Quantum mechanics
c=infinity G=0 h=h
Quantum field theory
c=c G=0 h=h

General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially separable
into independent components. Systems of three or more particles
require cluster separability (macroscopic locality). When the system
is separated into subsystems, the overall mathematical description
must reduce to descriptions of the subsystems. This is vital in
scattering problems with two or more fragments.

Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of product
states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within
readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit diffraction, the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox). Macroscopic locality is violated:
Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment alters the
observed diffraction pattern to single slit patterns (quantum eraser
experiments).

Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.

General Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate
transformations - general covariance (the stress-energy tensor
embodying local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization.
General Relativity is invariant under transformations of the
diffeomorphism group. General Relativity predicts evolution of an
initial system state with arbitrary certainty.

Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states. Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a
system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.

Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.

idiot

[G. L. Bradford]

Post by Uncle Al
[snip 138 lines of crap]
If GR is "compatible" with QFT, the claimant is an idiot.
Newton
c=infinity G=G h=0
Special Relativity
c=c G=0 h=0
General Relativity
c=c G=G h=0
Quantum mechanics
c=infinity G=0 h=h
Quantum field theory
c=c G=0 h=h
General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially separable
into independent components. Systems of three or more particles
require cluster separability (macroscopic locality). When the system
is separated into subsystems, the overall mathematical description
must reduce to descriptions of the subsystems. This is vital in
scattering problems with two or more fragments.
Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of product
states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within
readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit diffraction, the
Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment alters the
observed diffraction pattern to single slit patterns (quantum eraser
experiments).
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
General Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate
transformations - general covariance (the stress-energy tensor
embodying local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization.
General Relativity is invariant under transformations of the
diffeomorphism group. General Relativity predicts evolution of an
initial system state with arbitrary certainty.
Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states. Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a
system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
idiot
--
Uncle Al

===================

Jives with Chaos Theory, the Science of Complexity, and also, long before
them, Edward Gibbon (18th century) and Will Durant (20th century), among so
many others, on the nature of History itself: Always presenting the same
smoother aspect but never the same finer detail. Utopia-like entropic
aspect. Frontier-like energetic detail. Large aspect being far simpler, far
less differentiated (far less varied), far more certain and predictable (in
trends), though rarely so obviously so in foresight (conversely, always so
obviously so in hindsight). Far more reachable and graspable....far less
discrete. Fine detail being far more complex, far more differentiated (far
more varied), far more uncertain and unpredictable (in trends). Far more
unreachable and ungraspable....far more discrete. Each being always within
the other as an integral inseparable part and side of the other. The two
always being the fullest -most absolute- equals.

Dismiss one, at any time, as being of lesser presence and consequence, you
are in deep trouble with the other. You then have little dimension.

GLB

===================

[Androcles]

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Uncle Al
[snip 138 lines of crap]
If GR is "compatible" with QFT, the claimant is an idiot.
Newton
c=infinity G=G h=0
Special Relativity
c=c G=0 h=0
General Relativity
c=c G=G h=0
Quantum mechanics
c=infinity G=0 h=h
Quantum field theory
c=c G=0 h=h
General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially separable
into independent components. Systems of three or more particles
require cluster separability (macroscopic locality). When the system
is separated into subsystems, the overall mathematical description
must reduce to descriptions of the subsystems. This is vital in
scattering problems with two or more fragments.
Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of product
states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within
readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit diffraction, the
Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment alters the
observed diffraction pattern to single slit patterns (quantum eraser
experiments).
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
General Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate
transformations - general covariance (the stress-energy tensor
embodying local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization.
General Relativity is invariant under transformations of the
diffeomorphism group. General Relativity predicts evolution of an
initial system state with arbitrary certainty.
Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states. Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a
system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
idiot
--
Uncle Al

===================
Jives with Chaos Theory,

The word you want is "jibe".

"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.


"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

Schwartz lies. He is the idiot and a shithead.

[G. L. Bradford]

Post by Androcles

Post by G. L. Bradford

Post by Uncle Al
[snip 138 lines of crap]
If GR is "compatible" with QFT, the claimant is an idiot.
Newton
c=infinity G=G h=0
Special Relativity
c=c G=0 h=0
General Relativity
c=c G=G h=0
Quantum mechanics
c=infinity G=0 h=h
Quantum field theory
c=c G=0 h=h
General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially separable
into independent components. Systems of three or more particles
require cluster separability (macroscopic locality). When the system
is separated into subsystems, the overall mathematical description
must reduce to descriptions of the subsystems. This is vital in
scattering problems with two or more fragments.
Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of product
states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within
readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit diffraction, the
Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment alters the
observed diffraction pattern to single slit patterns (quantum eraser
experiments).
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
General Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate
transformations - general covariance (the stress-energy tensor
embodying local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization.
General Relativity is invariant under transformations of the
diffeomorphism group. General Relativity predicts evolution of an
initial system state with arbitrary certainty.
Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states. Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a
system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.
Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
idiot
--
Uncle Al

===================
Jives with Chaos Theory,

The word you want is "jibe".
"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Schwartz lies. He is the idiot and a shithead.

======================

Yes, jibes!

GLB

======================