Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:

Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.

So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a gravitational field:

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."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer (at the moment of reception).

If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a gravitational field:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer (at the moment of reception).

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Clever Einsteinians know that the following theorem is valid:
>
> Theorem: If the speed of light varies with the gravitational
> potential, then it varies with the speed of the light source as well.
>
> So if Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct for a
> gravitational field:
>
> 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."
>
> then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
> will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+v, where v is the speed of
> the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
> (at the moment of reception).
>
> If Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct for a
> gravitational field:
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
> of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
> be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
> and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> potential term."
>
> then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
> will measure the speed of light to be c'=c+2v, where v is the speed of
> the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer
> (at the moment of reception).

The crucial question is: Who should make the official declaration that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?

Answer: The Royal Society should make that declaration. They devised Divine Albert in 1919 and have had guilty conscience ever since:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3338512/Think-big,-like-Einstein.html
Martin Rees: "Although there's something rather noble about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong signal. It unduly exalts "armchair theory", which by itself would achieve little."

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880
"Members of the public and Royal Society scientists, both Fellows and Research Fellows, were asked to vote in two separate polls for who they thought had made the greater contribution out of Einstein and Newton....The results showed Newton to be the winner on all counts, although opinion was much closer on the overall contribution to humankind. When asked who made the bigger overall contribution to science the public voted 61.8% for Newton and 38.2% for Einstein and the scientists voted 86.2% for Newton and 13.8% for Einstein."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880
"Members of the public and Royal Society scientists, both Fellows and Research Fellows, were asked to vote in two separate polls for who they thought had made the greater contribution out of Einstein and Newton....The results showed Newton to be the winner on all counts, although opinion was much closer on the overall contribution to humankind. When asked who made the bigger overall contribution to science the public voted 61.8% for Newton and 38.2% for Einstein and the scientists voted 86.2% for Newton and 13.8% for Einstein."

cinci: It shouldn't surprise you much that English scientists voted for an Englishman over a German. And even that isn't necessary becasue Eisntein would have voted for Newton becasue Eisntein contributed in a very narrow area of science while Newton practically invented the scientific approach. He invented calculus to be able to calculate things from his theory of gravity and his laws of motion. Maybe the public voted the otehr way because Einstein lived in the las century and Newton lived over 300 years ago.
****************************

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

cinci: A book has been out with this idea for probably 10 years....where have youbeen?
*************************