http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Examples of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought" and advancing some red herring which in the end camouflages the real problem:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030526/26beyond.htm
"Einstein postulated, first, that the laws of physics don't prefer one reference frame over another, as long as each is moving at a constant velocity. Second, he said that c, the speed of light, will appear exactly the same to every observer, in every frame of reference. A century later, that second postulate still defies common sense. It says that if you're driving down the highway at a quarter the speed of light, you'll still see the photons from your headlights racing ahead of you at light speed--not three-quarters light speed. If I'm coming from the opposite direction at half light speed, I'll still see your photons approaching at c--not 1.5 times c. Since speed is just space divided by time, and we both agree about the speed of light, we can't possibly agree about space and time. You say my clock is too slow and my yardstick has shrunk (not to mention my whole car). Maddeningly, I say the same about you. The one thing we agree on, aside from c itself, is the distance covered by the photons in the weird new reference frame of four-dimensional spacetime. It might be a relief to learn that physicists were talking about chucking this deeply strange theory. But just as Einstein made only minute corrections to Newton in everyday life--to really feel the effects of special relativity, you have to move at a large fraction of light speed--the proposed changes to relativity would have only subtle, hard-to-detect effects. Yet the stakes are big: the quest for a single theory that would unite general relativity, Einstein's later theory describing gravity, with quantum mechanics, the theory describing the forces inside the atom. Physicists are taking many paths to this "quantum gravity" grail, but in all of them spacetime itself, instead of being continuous, is made of quantum bits. "It's like the difference between sand and water," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia of La Sapienza University in Rome--except that the spacetime grains could be around a hundred billion billionth the size of an atomic nucleus. At this "Planck length," named after the father of quantum physics, gravity would no longer be described by general relativity but by the new theory."

http://www.spacetimecenter.org/conferences/2008/Henry.pdf
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"Students find physics difficult - I am thinking of first-year undergraduate university physics majors. I found it difficult myself, and it took me almost 40 years of teaching physics to fully understand the reasons for the perceived "difficulty." Why do students who find mathematics easy to understand, find physics difficult to understand?....How grotesquely badly we teach special relativity encapsulates the practical problem of teaching physics to the freshman physics major. I have never found a single freshman physics textbook that teaches Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on General Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two postulates.".....There is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!) did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativitythe discovery of the implication that E = mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human!......Antique postulates that are not of anything but historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as "Special Relativity.".....I feel that the time has come to relegate the "two postulates" to the dustbin of history, and to teach special relativity to undergraduates (or indeed, to middle school students) the Minkowski way."

http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemistry/etextbook/6469/6469_preface.pdf
Arieh Ben-Naim: "I believe that the time is ripe to acknowledge that the term entropy, as originally coined by Clausius, is an unfortunate choice. Moreover, it is also a misleading term both in its meaning in ancient and in contemporary Greek. On this matter, I cannot do any better than Leon Cooper (1968). Cooper cites the original passage from Clausius: in choosing the word "Entropy," Clausius wrote: "I prefer going to the ancient languages for the names of important scientific quantities, so that they mean the same thing in all living tongues. I propose, accordingly, to call S the entropy of a body, after the Greek word "transformation." I have designedly coined the word entropy to be similar to energy, for these two quantities are so analogous in their physical significance, that an analogy of denominations seems to be helpful." Right after quoting Clausius' explanation on his reasons for the choice of the word "Entropy," Cooper commented: "By doing this, rather than extracting a name from the body of the current language (say: lost heat), he succeeded in coining a word that meant the same thing to everybody: nothing." I fully agree with Coopers comment; however, I have two additional comments, and contrary to Cooper, I venture into taking the inevitable conclusion: First, I agree that "entropy means the same thing to everybody: nothing." But more than that, entropy is also a misleading term....Finally, I believe that the time has come to reach the inevitable conclusion that entropy is a misnomer and should be replaced by either missing information or uncertainty."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> Examples of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold
> of any dangerous thought" and advancing some red herring which in the
> end camouflages the real problem:
> ..................................................

More examples of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought" and advancing some red herring which in the end camouflages the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000218/00/Origins_of_contraction.pdf
Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis, it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2 and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
"Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity"
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "An examination of the status of length contraction in the context of Einsteins 1905 treatment of SR will illustrate the way in which principle theories fail to be explanatory. Recall that in this derivation the first conclusion drawn from the two fundamental postulates is the invariance of the speed of light, that it has the same constant value in all inertial frames. This gives the k-Lorentz transformations, the Lorentz transformations up to a velocity dependent scale factor, k. What has, in effect, been shown is that if the speed of light as measured with respect to frame F0 is to be found to be the same value as when measured with respect to the resting frame F, then rods and clocks at rest in F0 had better contract and dilate (with respect to frame F) in the coordinated way that is encoded in the k-Lorentz transformations. One then appeals to the relativity principle againthe principle entails that these coordinated contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/philphys/index.html
John Norton: "Neo-Lorentzians return again. A perennial topic of debate is whether the physical effects of special relativity (e.g. length contraction) require some sort of physical explanation that in turn requires some sort of state of rest such as Lorentz envisaged was supplied by his ether."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Problem of relativity is confused. There is a lot of words, without of hope to overcoming. I think we have to make some groupe with common interest; but problem is money. I don´t believe "money is no object". Be scientist means to believe to relativism and earn money.
One half year ago, as employee of Academy, sough Engineer only, I attempted to solve that problem. To end faith of relativity. By my own invention, about measuring of time dilation. I am retired, it means without success.

We need to becom rich, or integrate some rich. I make some project, to tend it. Very slowly unfortunately; so ridiculous, I am afraid. Having some product, debate about relativity would be good advertising. Not having any product, we are .. ridiculous.

What to do?

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> Examples of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold
> of any dangerous thought" and advancing some red herring which in the
> end camouflages the real problem:
> ..................................................

Another example of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought" and advancing some red herring which in the end camouflages the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_Relativity/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c. The speed of a light signal was quite unlike the speed of a pebble, say. The pebble could move at any speed, depending on how hard it was thrown. It was different with light in Maxwell's theory. No matter how the light signal was made and projected, its speed always came out the same."

If John Norton did not obey crimestop, his text would be as follows:

"Why Einstein did not believe the light postulate is easy to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says no. That is, in accordance with the light postulate, no matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his secret rejection of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in the aether. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple, relative to the aether, was a quite definite number: c. If, however, the relative speed of the observer and the aether was v, then the speed of light relative to the observer was VARIABLE and obeyed the equation c'=c+v. Yet that was not the correct equation: as far as its speed was concerned, light obeyed Newton's emission theory of light and behaved like a pebble, say. That is, the speed of light was again VARIABLE and obeyed the equation c'=c+v, but this equation was different since v was the relative speed of the light source and the observer."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of the dangerous thought: "Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is false; its antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light (c'=c+v) is true":

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, THAT IS ON CONTINUOUS STRUCTURES. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781540289/einstein_on_gravitation_from_scientific_american.html
Albert Einstein 1950: "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a CONTINUOUS FIELD, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRK6ojWdtU
"The [Maxwell] equation seemed to say that light moved at 186000 miles per second relative to.....everything"

If Einsteinians did not obey crimestop the text would be:

"The [Maxwell] equation seemed to say that light moved at 186000 miles per second relative to an observer at rest with respect to the aether. Relative to an observer moving at speed v with respect to the aether, the equation said the speed of light would be c'=186000+v. "

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22.html#twentytwo
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's self-education:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts moving towards the light source, the Doppler effect is due to shift in wavelength, not to shift in the speed of light", "Einsteiniana says that, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long pole can safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> > George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> > though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> > includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> > logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> > inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> > thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> > Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22.html#twentytwo
> George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
> presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
> flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
> himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
> self-education:
>
> "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
> with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
> moving towards the light source, the Doppler effect is due to shift in
> wavelength, not to shift in the speed of light", "Einsteiniana says
> that, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long
> pole can safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained
> himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Einsteinians exercising themselves in crimestop by presenting themselves with the proposition: The Michelson-Morley experiment "showed that the speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
"On July 22 the Einstein Papers Project, located at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, will release the 12th volume of letters written or received by Albert Einstein - 791 of them - plus transcripts of several notable lectures and interviews the physicist gave, covering the year 1921. It was a momentous 12 months. You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him, but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the observer's speed or direction of motion - an idea that forms the core of special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones."

However stupidity is "as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain". The same Einsteinians (more precisely, John Norton is an Editor of the Einstein Papers Project) attaining utmost intelligence:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
>http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22.html#twentytwo
> George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
> presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
> flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
> himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
> self-education:
>
> "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
> with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
> moving towards the light source, the Doppler effect is due to shift
> inwavelength, not to shift in the speed of light", "Einsteiniana says
> that, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long
> pole can safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained
> himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, exercising himself in and teaching crimestop. The TEXT IN CAPITALS is an obvious stupidity but John Norton and his students sincerely believe in it:

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)."

Without the "protective stupidity" John Norton would have to explain that it is the speed of light that varies with the frequency when the observer starts hurrying towards the source of light.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> > George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> > though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> > includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> > logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> > inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> > thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> > Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22.html#twentytwo
> > George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
> > presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
> > flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
> > himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> > contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> > reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> > instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> > his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> > an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> > the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> > was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> > George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
> > self-education:
>
> > "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
> > with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
> > moving towards the light source, the Doppler effect is due to shift
> > inwavelength, not to shift in the speed of light", "Einsteiniana says
> > that, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long
> > pole can safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained
> > himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> > contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> > reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> > instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> > his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> > an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> > the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> > was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, exercising himself in and
> teaching crimestop. The TEXT IN CAPITALS is an obvious stupidity but
> John Norton and his students sincerely believe in it:
>
>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)."
>
> Without the "protective stupidity" John Norton would have to explain
> that it is the speed of light that varies with the frequency when the
> observer starts hurrying towards the source of light.

A sound question challenging Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (note how stupid the answer is):

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_relative_speed_of_light_be_constant_when_the_Doppler_shift_of_light_suggests_addition_or_subtraction_of_velocities
Question: How can the relative speed of light be constant when the Doppler shift of light suggests addition or subtraction of velocities?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

This is about a dogmatic ASSUMPTION that "light" is governed by kinematic law of Doppler shift (in wide analogy with sound). So, both question and answer from the above are based on the long standing dogma of "modern physics". In fact entire scientific cosmology is almost entirely based on that same ASSUMPTION.

Or in more direct words, did anyone ever directly measure KINEMATIC light Doppler shift?

Be sure that almost each and every basic physics seminar is lecturing this wisdom. I am very gentle when I call all that as "Ptolemaic science".

God bless...

> > >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> > > George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> > > though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> > > includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> > > logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> > > inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> > > thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> > > Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> > >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22.html#twentytwo
> > > George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
> > > presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
> > > flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
> > > himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> > > contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> > > reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> > > instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> > > his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> > > an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> > > the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> > > was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> > > George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
> > > self-education:
>
> > > "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
> > > with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
> > > moving towards the light source, the Doppler effect is due to shift
> > > inwavelength, not to shift in the speed of light", "Einsteiniana says
> > > that, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long
> > > pole can safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained
> > > himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> > > contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> > > reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> > > instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> > > his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> > > an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> > > the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> > > was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>
> > John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, exercising himself in and
> > teaching crimestop. The TEXT IN CAPITALS is an obvious stupidity but
> > John Norton and his students sincerely believe in it:
>
> >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)."
>
> > Without the "protective stupidity" John Norton would have to explain
> > that it is the speed of light that varies with the frequency when the
> > observer starts hurrying towards the source of light.
>
> A sound question challenging Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
> (note how stupid the answer is):
>
>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_relative_speed_of_light_be_constant_when_the_Doppler_shift_of_light_suggests_addition_or_subtraction_of_velocities
> Question: How can the relative speed of light be constant when the
> Doppler shift of light suggests addition or subtraction of velocities?

"Stopping [in this case perhaps too] short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought":

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/03/high-energy-gamma-rays-go-slower-than-the-speed-of-light/
"The speed of light is the speed of light, and that's that. Right? Well, maybe not. Try and figure this out. Astronomers studying radiation coming from a distant galaxy found that the high energy gamma rays arrived a few minutes after the lower-energy photons, even though they were emitted at the same time. If true, this result would overturn Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that all photons should move at the speed of light. Uh oh Einstein."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

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."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Yet some Einsteinians regard "The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential" as a dangerous thought and stop short, as though by instinct, at the treshold of it:

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://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

Clever Einsteinians do not regard "The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential" as a dangerous thought but they always stop short, as though by instinct, at the treshold of an extremely dangerous thought which is a corollary of "The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential":

The extremely dangerous thought: "Practically no light in the universe travels at the constant speed c=299792km/s; one reason is that there is always some gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of reception (observation)".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"Clever Einsteinians do not regard "The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential" as a dangerous thought but they always stop short, as though by instinct, at the treshold of an extremely dangerous thought which is a corollary of "The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential":

The extremely dangerous thought: "Practically no light in the universe travels at the constant speed c=299792km/s; one reason is that there is always some gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and the point of reception (observation)". "

This is perfectly true, if one assumption is made:

"Clever Einsteinians" should mean 'clever novice in general relativity', where novice means 15 hours of lectures and no time for exercice or reflexion.

In addition, the statement is also true when replacing "Clever Einsteinians" by a reference to all those people who will never be able to understand GR including -of course- Pentcho Valev.

It doesn't need a large IQ to understand that the local speed of light might be constant without the "overall speed" being constant (also called "coordinate speed"). This can even be understood by primary school kids on an extreme (caricatured) example: the round-trip around the earth where the speed could be calculated as 30 km/h or 0 km/h depending on the point of view.

All my friend that have studied GR have no problem with this simple question.
By contrast Pentcho Valev has problems with that and collect all references of other people with the same problems.
In this way he feel excused for his stupidity.

__________________________________________________________________

We can say on this basis that Pentcho Valev is a "clever idiot".
__________________________________________________________________

And we, as well, can excuse you for your stupidity, since you cannot understand his point. We can say on this basis that you are the less "clever idiot".

His point is very clear: he makes a lot of fuss from his own misunderstanding and has no clue to go further except trying old recipes.

Your point his even clearer: you have no point.

Typical of regressives: You don't get his point, so you arrogantly insist that he has one. You are the wall.

Re: Anonym, CRIMESTOP IN SCIENCE August 18 2009, 3:19 AM

Anonym: "Clever Einsteinians" should mean 'clever novice in general relativity', where novice means 15 hours of lectures and no time for exercice or reflexion."

You have no clue as to what a "novice" is Anonym, no clue at all! The time of "exercise and/or reflection" as a Clever Einsteinian, is a life spent in Dunderland, from the series Albert in Dunderland, even a novice in Relativity is a Dunderhead!

Dunderland does not exist, except as a camouflage for your ignorance.

Re: Anonym, CRIMESTOP IN SCIENCE August 18 2009, 4:38 PM

Anonym: "Dunderland does not exist, except as a camouflage for your ignorance."

Yes Anonym, Dunderland does exist! It's a fantasy land where Dunderheaded Relativists exist.

Dunderhead:
* Date: circa 1625
: dunce, blockhead
dun·der·head·ed \dn-dr-he-dd\ adjective

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901132806.htm
"Measuring the curvature of space caused by gravity is one of the most sensitive ways to learn how Einstein's theory of General Relativity relates to quantum physics. Uniting gravity theory with quantum theory is a major goal of 21st-Century physics, and these astronomical measurements are a key to understanding the relationship between the two," said Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri. Kopeikin and his colleagues used the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) radio-telescope system to measure the bending of light caused by the Sun's gravity to within one part in 30,000. With further observations, the scientists say their precision technique can make the most accurate measure ever of this phenomenon. Bending of starlight by gravity was predicted by Albert Einstein when he published his theory of General Relativity in 1916. According to relativity theory, the strong gravity of a massive object such as the Sun produces curvature in the nearby space, which alters the path of light or radio waves passing near the object. The phenomenon was first observed during a solar eclipse in 1919. Though numerous measurements of the effect have been made over the intervening 90 years, the problem of merging General Relativity and quantum theory has required ever more accurate observations. Physicists describe the space curvature and gravitational light-bending as a parameter called "gamma." Einstein's theory holds that gamma should equal exactly 1.0."

Kopeikin and his brothers Einsteinians always stop short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of the dangerous thought: Is the parameter "gamma" consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light, or is it consistent with Einstein's 1915 (or 1955) "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

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."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "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 results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Joao Magueijo, the official maverick in Einsteiniana, demonstrating protective stupidity, that is, stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of the dangerous thought: "Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false":

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed! Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe works. And my idea was exactly a "varying speed of light" theory."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com