Einstein's theory is an inconsistency (based on two incompatible
principles) and this allows it to draw support from various tests. So
when in 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 this confirmed Einstein's theory because the factor was
consistent with Einstein's principle of variability of the speed of
light c'=c(1+V/c^2). If Pound and Rebka had measured no redshift
(factor=1) this would again have confirmed Einstein's theory because
the result would have been consistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light c'=c.

Unfortunately the idyllic century is over. Einstein's inconsistency has
become too dangerous so Einsteinians have a deep longing to see change
and raise honest voices. Einstein's relativity is fatally incompatible
with quantum mechanics so we should test and understand it after all,
they say:

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...rticleID=13464

Needless to say, Divine Albert has left all necessary instructions for
successors who have a deep longing to see change:

Divine Albert: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Divine Albert again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

wow, that sounds damn exciting Pentcho.

Oh! to be eyes, ears and a mouth at that meeting.

and its true, science had been rather stagnant for 20 years leading up
to the 90s.

MTwain has got some interesting notions regarding linear and angular
orientations of atomic particles, but still, it seems to me there's a
hole in it.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's theory is an inconsistency (based on two incompatible
principles) and this allows it to draw support from various tests. So
when in 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 this confirmed Einstein's theory because the factor was
consistent with Einstein's principle of variability of the speed of
light c'=c(1+V/c^2). If Pound and Rebka had measured no redshift
(factor=1) this would again have confirmed Einstein's theory because
the result would have been consistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light c'=c.

Unfortunately the idyllic century is over. Einstein's inconsistency has
become too dangerous so Einsteinians have a deep longing to see change
and raise honest voices. Einstein's relativity is fatally incompatible
with quantum mechanics so we should test and understand it after all,
they say:

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...rticleID=13464

Needless to say, Divine Albert has left all necessary instructions for
successors who have a deep longing to see change:

Divine Albert: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Divine Albert again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's theory is an inconsistency (based on two incompatible
principles) and this allows it to draw support from various tests. So
when in 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 this confirmed Einstein's theory because the factor was
consistent with Einstein's principle of variability of the speed of
light c'=c(1+V/c^2). If Pound and Rebka had measured no redshift
(factor=1) this would again have confirmed Einstein's theory because
the result would have been consistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light c'=c.

Unfortunately the idyllic century is over. Einstein's inconsistency has
become too dangerous so Einsteinians have a deep longing to see change
and raise honest voices. Einstein's relativity is fatally incompatible
with quantum mechanics so we should test and understand it after all,
they say:

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...rticleID=13464

Needless to say, Divine Albert has left all necessary instructions for
successors who have a deep longing to see change:

Divine Albert: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Divine Albert again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

John Jones wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's theory is an inconsistency (based on two incompatible
principles) and this allows it to draw support from various tests. So
when in 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 this confirmed Einstein's theory because the factor was
consistent with Einstein's principle of variability of the speed of
light c'=c(1+V/c^2). If Pound and Rebka had measured no redshift
(factor=1) this would again have confirmed Einstein's theory because
the result would have been consistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of the speed of light c'=c.

Unfortunately the idyllic century is over. Einstein's inconsistency has
become too dangerous so Einsteinians have a deep longing to see change
and raise honest voices. Einstein's relativity is fatally incompatible
with quantum mechanics so we should test and understand it after all,
they say:

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...rticleID=13464

Needless to say, Divine Albert has left all necessary instructions for
successors who have a deep longing to see change:

Divine Albert: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the
speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

Divine Albert again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev