🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

So in 1907 Einstein's nightmare began - it is easy to show, and
Einstein must have realized very quickly, that if the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential, it varies with the speed of
the observer as well (in the absence of a gravitational field):

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

Since the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field
is a fundamental tenet of Einstein's general relativity, it is
extremely difficult to camouflage it. In 1911 Einstein devised some
camouflage (gravitational time dilation) but it is so absurd that even
Richard Feynman gets confused when trying to explain it (see below).
Einsteinians much sillier than Feynman usually solve all the problems
by simply declaring that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field:

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://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "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 wrote:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at
the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as
in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these
two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems
to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that
the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are
sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the
ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and
the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter
distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the
time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes
were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock
B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second
flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can destroy any rationality, even Richard
Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that
L1=L2.

The problem has an easy solution. The observer (sitting at the tail)
measures the frequency of light to have increased. Then, by taking
into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

he concludes that either the speed of light (relative to the observer)
has increased (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false) or the
wavelength has decreased. Einsteinians believe that the wavelength
somehow varies with the speed of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com