http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

There is a trivial truth Einstein uses in this case: the speed of
light "varies with position" in a gravitational field but, in the
absence of a gravitational field or in a free-falling laboratory, it
does not vary with position and IN THIS SENSE is constant. However
Einstein knows that in Einstein zombie world constancy in any sense
could easily become constancy in the sense of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body" and so the 1905 light postulate
is violated. The intimate relationship between Einstein and Einstein
zombie world is nicely expressed by the Cambridge Professor John
Barrow:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev

A constancy in the sense of the Michelson-Morley experiment which, in
Einstein zombie world, could easily become constancy in the sense of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge196.html
George Smoot, Recipient, The 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics: "When I
taught special relativity to my physics students at Berkeley, I
tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn path: first,
the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important thing that ever
happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the motion of Earth
through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to be the medium
carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the speed of light is
constant."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "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."

Compare with:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 23, 10:23*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

There is a trivial truth Einstein uses in this case: the speed of
light "varies with position" in a gravitational field but, in the
absence of a gravitational field or in a free-falling laboratory, it
does not vary with position and IN THIS SENSE is constant. However
Einstein knows that in Einstein zombie world constancy in any sense
could easily become constancy in the sense of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body" and so the 1905 light postulate
is violated. The intimate relationship between Einstein and Einstein
zombie world is nicely expressed by the Cambridge Professor John
Barrow:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: "So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that
the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field
implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body".

It does not imply that at all. But you are close without realizing
it.

But still 'no'. Lightspeed does not depend on the emitter. It
travels at its speed according to its propagation medium.

Figure that out instead of jumping to false conclusions.

On Mar 23, 11:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
A constancy in the sense of the Michelson-Morley experiment which, in
Einstein zombie world, could easily become constancy in the sense of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge196.html
George Smoot, Recipient, The 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics: "When I
taught special relativity to my physics students at Berkeley, I
tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn path: first,
the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important thing that ever
happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the motion of Earth
through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to be the medium
carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the speed of light is
constant."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "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."

Compare with:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: Quote me. "Red blankets will certainly suffocate you, whereas
blue blankets cannot".

When Einsteinians are sure that a particular constancy has nothing to
do with the Original Divine Constancy given by Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate, they boldly violate it, produce shock and horror in
Einstein zombie world, point to a Great Revolution in Science that is
just around the corner and make a lot of profit in terms of career and
money:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "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?"

Then Einsteinians quickly return to the classical miraculous
corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate that constitute
the main money-spinner in Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davi...ies_index.html
Paul Davies: "Remarkably, Wells's story was written about ten years
before the publication of Einstein's special theory of relativity was
published. Special relativity showed that time is elastic, flexible.
It isn't simply there -- the same for everybody, as Newton supposed.
There's your time and my time, and they can differ depending on how we
move. If I jump in a rocket ship and head off at nearly the speed of
light to a nearby star and come back again ten earth years later, I
may have aged only, say, one year. This is called the twins effect,
because if I left my twin brother at home, when I returned we would no
longer be the same age. He would be ten years older, and I only one
year older. In effect, I will have time-travelled nine years into his
future. Bizarre though this time-stretching effect seems, we know it's
true.....Travel into the past is much more problematic, though. The
significant thing is, our best understanding of the nature of time,
which comes from Einstein's general theory of relativity, leaves open
the possibility of travel into the past. It doesn't say you can't do
it, there's no known law within the theory of relativity to forbid it.
But finding a plausible scenario to actually travel into the past is
not an easy thing......This topic is often cast in the parable of the
grandmother paradox: you go back 50 years and kill your grandmother,
ensuring that you were never born in the first place. One way around
it is that if you go to a parallel world, and kill your parallel
grandmother, you can return to your own time to find Granny still
alive and well. That's a possible resolution. There isn't any
consensus on it. Perhaps the existence of parallel realities is a
worse prospect than that of causal loop paradoxes......Einstein's
theory of relativity tells us that space is curved by gravity, so
imagine that it was warped in such a way that it connected earth with
the center of the galaxy through a tube or a tunnel that might only be
a few kilometers long -- who knows? The point is that if a wormhole is
possible, it can be adapted for use as a time machine, as shown by Kip
Thorne at Caltech, and his colleagues, and now the subject of an
international cottage industry in research papers. To travel in time,
what you do is this. You first plunge through the wormhole and exit at
the remote end, then you zoom back home again through ordinary space
at nearly the speed of light. If the circumstances are right, you can
get back before you leave."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 24, 3:12*am, xxein wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:23*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

There is a trivial truth Einstein uses in this case: the speed of
light "varies with position" in a gravitational field but, in the
absence of a gravitational field or in a free-falling laboratory, it
does not vary with position and IN THIS SENSE is constant. However
Einstein knows that in Einstein zombie world constancy in any sense
could easily become constancy in the sense of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body" and so the 1905 light postulate
is violated. The intimate relationship between Einstein and Einstein
zombie world is nicely expressed by the Cambridge Professor John
Barrow:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: "So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that
the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field
implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body".

It does not imply that at all.

A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits photons with
speed c (relative to the source). The photons accelerate so that, when
they reach a receiver on the ground, their speed (relative to the
receiver) is

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) /1/

which is Einstein's 1911 equation. Now a rocket with length h
accelerates with acceleration g. A light source at the front end emits
photons with speed c (relative to the source). When the photons reach
the receiver at the back end, this receiver has a speed v relative to
the light source at the moment of emission. What is the speed of the
photons, c', relative to the receiver, at the moment of reception?

You should only apply Einstein's equivalence principle and see that

gh = cv /2/

Substitute this into /1/ and you obtain

c' = c + v /3/

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 24, 7:26 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:12 am, xxein wrote:



On Mar 23, 10:23 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

There is a trivial truth Einstein uses in this case: the speed of
light "varies with position" in a gravitational field but, in the
absence of a gravitational field or in a free-falling laboratory, it
does not vary with position and IN THIS SENSE is constant. However
Einstein knows that in Einstein zombie world constancy in any sense
could easily become constancy in the sense of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body" and so the 1905 light postulate
is violated. The intimate relationship between Einstein and Einstein
zombie world is nicely expressed by the Cambridge Professor John
Barrow:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: "So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that
the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field
implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body".

It does not imply that at all.

A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits photons with
speed c (relative to the source). The photons accelerate so that, when
they reach a receiver on the ground, their speed (relative to the
receiver) is

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) /1/

which is Einstein's 1911 equation. Now a rocket with length h
accelerates with acceleration g. A light source at the front end emits
photons with speed c (relative to the source). When the photons reach
the receiver at the back end, this receiver has a speed v relative to
the light source at the moment of emission. What is the speed of the
photons, c', relative to the receiver, at the moment of reception?

You should only apply Einstein's equivalence principle and see that

gh = cv /2/

Substitute this into /1/ and you obtain

c' = c + v /3/

Pentcho Valev


thanks

but this is body fluids

this is only becus tha fools at that time and
nnow still thinkin that light is partical and balistic

particles are oxymorons, you cant have a zero
size consistent somthin embedded in 3d

you can draw it, but drawings are body fluids
as well, which is for gay

light is not balistic and dont propagate

light is much more than that

fat rats dont understan gravity nor light

On Mar 24, 7:52*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
When Einsteinians are sure that a particular constancy has nothing to
do with the Original Divine Constancy given by Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate, they boldly violate it, produce shock and horror in
Einstein zombie world, point to a Great Revolution in Science that is
just around the corner and make a lot of profit in terms of career and
money:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "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?"

Then Einsteinians quickly return to the classical miraculous
corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate that constitute
the main money-spinner in Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davi...ies_index.html
Paul Davies: "Remarkably, Wells's story was written about ten years
before the publication of Einstein's special theory of relativity was
published. Special relativity showed that time is elastic, flexible.
It isn't simply there -- the same for everybody, as Newton supposed.
There's your time and my time, and they can differ depending on how we
move. If I jump in a rocket ship and head off at nearly the speed of
light to a nearby star and come back again ten earth years later, I
may have aged only, say, one year. This is called the twins effect,
because if I left my twin brother at home, when I returned we would no
longer be the same age. He would be ten years older, and I only one
year older. In effect, I will have time-travelled nine years into his
future. Bizarre though this time-stretching effect seems, we know it's
true.....Travel into the past is much more problematic, though. The
significant thing is, our best understanding of the nature of time,
which comes from Einstein's general theory of relativity, leaves open
the possibility of travel into the past. It doesn't say you can't do
it, there's no known law within the theory of relativity to forbid it.
But finding a plausible scenario to actually travel into the past is
not an easy thing......This topic is often cast in the parable of the
grandmother paradox: you go back 50 years and kill your grandmother,
ensuring that you were never born in the first place. One way around
it is that if you go to a parallel world, and kill your parallel
grandmother, you can return to your own time to find Granny still
alive and well. That's a possible resolution. There isn't any
consensus on it. Perhaps the existence of parallel realities is a
worse prospect than that of causal loop paradoxes......Einstein's
theory of relativity tells us that space is curved by gravity, so
imagine that it was warped in such a way that it connected earth with
the center of the galaxy through a tube or a tunnel that might only be
a few kilometers long -- who knows? The point is that if a wormhole is
possible, it can be adapted for use as a time machine, as shown by Kip
Thorne at Caltech, and his colleagues, and now the subject of an
international cottage industry in research papers. To travel in time,
what you do is this. You first plunge through the wormhole and exit at
the remote end, then you zoom back home again through ordinary space
at nearly the speed of light. If the circumstances are right, you can
get back before you leave."

When Einsteinians are sure that a particular constancy/variability of
the speed of light has nothing to do with Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate, they become so bold as to use it explicitly in their fights
for supremacy in Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ingtheory.html
Lee Smolin: "Well, every string theory that's been written down says
the speed of light is universal. But other ideas about quantum gravity
predict the speed of light has actually increased. And an experiment
on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, launching next year, will
check this. So I've said, look, if the speed of light isn't universal,
that disconfirms string theory. But the string theorists say they
could probably invent versions of the theory that work either way.
We'd have to change our notion of what science is to accommodate this
proposition. You just can't do science on that basis."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 23, 11:17 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
A constancy in the sense of the Michelson-Morley experiment which, in
Einstein zombie world, could easily become constancy in the sense of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge196.html
George Smoot, Recipient, The 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics: "When I
taught special relativity to my physics students at Berkeley, I
tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn path: first,
the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important thing that ever
happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the motion of Earth
through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to be the medium
carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the speed of light is
constant."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "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."

Compare with:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev


Dear Pentcho: You are one of the most energetic promoters of your
views on science I have ever read. Your problem: You enjoy the
process of arguing "the old things" too much to give them up. Get a
new pair of glasses and read my various posts. I've disproved SR and
GR! So, arguing about earlier explanations of this or that is a waste
of your time, and a disservice to the many naive minds that might try
to follow your reasoning. Step out of your vacuum, fellow! --
NoEinstein -- :-)

On Mar 24, 2:26*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 24, wrote:





On Mar 23, 10:23*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

There is a trivial truth Einstein uses in this case: the speed of
light "varies with position" in a gravitational field but, in the
absence of a gravitational field or in a free-falling laboratory, it
does not vary with position and IN THIS SENSE is constant. However
Einstein knows that in Einstein zombie world constancy in any sense
could easily become constancy in the sense of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body" and so the 1905 light postulate
is violated. The intimate relationship between Einstein and Einstein
zombie world is nicely expressed by the Cambridge Professor John
Barrow:

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulleti..._5_p2p3%7F.pdf
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: "So Einstein zombie world will never realize that the fact that
the
speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field
implies
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, it does depend on "the
state of motion of the emitting body".

It does not imply that at all.

A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits photons with
speed c (relative to the source). The photons accelerate so that, when
they reach a receiver on the ground, their speed (relative to the
receiver) is

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) * * * * * * * /1/

which is Einstein's 1911 equation. Now a rocket with length h
accelerates with acceleration g. A light source at the front end emits
photons with speed c (relative to the source). When the photons reach
the receiver at the back end, this receiver has a speed v relative to
the light source at the moment of emission. What is the speed of the
photons, c', relative to the receiver, at the moment of reception?

You should only apply Einstein's equivalence principle and see that

gh = cv * * * * * * * /2/

Substitute this into /1/ and you obtain

c' = c + v * * * * * * * * * * /3/

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: A mere statement of math does not describe a physic.

" A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits photons with
speed c (relative to the source). The photons accelerate so that, when
they reach a receiver on the ground, their speed (relative to the
receiver) is

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)" (if that has physical meaning).

Here you have a "static" case of emission parallel to gravity. The
frequency remains unchanged. The difference in measurement is the
clockrate used to measure the effects.

Your second example only shows that you confuse yourself further.