🚀 go-pugleaf

> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6039/jd9.html
> "An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking by John Doan, Melbourne,
> 29 August 97....There's only one thing that I want to raise with you
> in this letter, and it's Einstein's second postulate. Why can't you
> step out from Einstein's shadow and change relativity, Professor
> Hawking? Why should you accept Einstein's second postulate that the
> speed of light is absolute, resulting all paradoxes about time
> dilation? Why should you accept that c + v = c, in the sense that a
> light spent from Earth to a spaceship has to be measured as c
> regardless how fast the spaceship is travelling relative to Earth? How
> much evidence have you truly seen?....Your students would still keep
> asking the same questions your teachers have asked before. Many people
> are still confused. Some understand but cannot explain to idiots. Some
> don't understand but have stopped asking to stop being called idiots,
> too. And why should we deserve this? Why should we waste time
> imagining what our world would be like since Einstein said light is
> absolute? Why don't we go back and ask what if Einstein is wrong, that
> light is not absolute, that in fact c + c = 2c?....I have a dream,
> that one day Professor Hawking would write the first non-Einstein
> relativity book with an opposite second postulate, and I would be one
> of first readers congratulating you for helping me understand
> it.....If you say c + c = 2c, you certainly could make more sense than
> Einstein's postulate saying c + c = c. Yet where is non-Einstein
> relativity? Why can't you invent it, Professor Hawking? What has
> stopped you?"
>
> The Fundamental Mystery of Postscientism: Are Hawking-like teachers
> extremely silly and not so dishonest, or are they extremely dishonest
> and not so silly:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news156450506.html
> "Hawking's lecture focused on black holes, a term coined by American
> physicist John Wheeler. Hawking discussed the history of black holes
> beginning with British physicist John Michell in 1783, who suggested
> that there might be “Dark Stars” whose gravity is strong enough to
> trap light and prevent the stars from being seen from far away. Two
> Americans, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, proved that the speed
> of light is invariant and does not depend upon where it comes from.
> Therefore, Michell's picture of Dark Stars is not entirely correct.

The problem of the variability or constancy of the speed of light in a
gravitational field (does the speed of light "vary with position" in a
gravitational field, as Einstein believed and clever Einsteinians
nowadays teach, or does it remain constant, as silly Einsteinians
teach) shows that Einsteinians' stupidity or dishonesty is not the
major problem. Rather, scientific rationality has been irreversibly
destroyed so students just learn "the speed of light is variable" when
clever teachers want them to do so and "the speed of light is
constant" after clever teachers get replaced by silly teachers:

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

http://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.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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com