🚀 go-pugleaf

According to Newton's emission theory of light, light signals
accelerate "as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation" and this variation of the speed of light is the cause of
the gravitational redshift, in accordance with the formula:

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

Newton's emission theory of light implies that "THE GRAVITATIONAL RED
SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS",
that is, there is neither a real nor an apparent gravitational time
dilation:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency. Like Newton's emission
theory of light it involves variation of the speed of light in a
gravitational field but it also involves constancy of the speed of
light in a gravitational field with a REAL gravitational time dilation
as a consequence. In the latter case (REAL gravitational time
dilation) the gravitational reshshift can only "ARISE FROM CHANGES IN
THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS":

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/19/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/
"This time it was the gravitational redshift part of General
Relativity; and the stringency? An astonishing better-than-one-part-
in-100-million! How did Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy, though
this work was done while he was at the University of California
Berkeley), Holger Müler (Berkeley), and Achim Peters (Humboldt
University in Berlin) beat the previous best gravitational redshift
test... (...) Gravitational redshift is an inevitable consequence of
the equivalence principle that underlies general relativity. The
equivalence principle states that the local effects of gravity are the
same as those of being in an accelerated frame of reference. So the
downward force felt by someone in a lift could be equally due to an
upward acceleration of the lift or to gravity. Pulses of light sent
upwards from a clock on the lift floor will be redshifted when the
lift is accelerating upwards, meaning that this clock will appear to
tick more slowly when its flashes are compared at the ceiling of the
lift to another clock. Because there is no way to tell gravity and
acceleration apart, the same will hold true in a gravitational field;
in other words the greater the gravitational pull experienced by a
clock, or the closer it is to a massive body, the more slowly it will
tick."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/scientists-obtain-highly-accurate-relativity-measurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a long
train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com