# Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 13 2017 at 4:25 AM
Pentcho Valev

According to Newton's theory, in a gravitational field light particles fall with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - on the Earth, the acceleration of falling photons is g. This is an obvious consequence of the equivalence principle and many Einsteinians teach it, not knowing that in this case "g" is fatal for Einstein's relativity:

"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

The variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by Newton's emission theory has been confirmed experimentally:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

As the quotation below suggests, Pound, Rebka and Snider knew that their experiments had confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, not the gravitational time dilation predicted by Einstein's relativity:

R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev

 Respond to this message
Pentcho Valev

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 13 2017, 2:19 PM
 Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "One might conclude from the brief discussion above that a light beam in a gravitational field follows the same path a Newtonian particle would if it moved at the speed of light. This is true in the limit of small deviations from a straight line in a constant field, but is not true even for small deviations for a spatially varying field, such as the field near the sun the starlight travels through in the eclipse experiment mentioned above." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/general_relativity.html So for "small deviations from a straight line in a constant field", that is, in the framework of the freely-falling-elevator experiment, the speed of light varies as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity. Given this, considering complicated situations involving "spatially varying field" is totally irrelevant. Pentcho Valev
Anonymous

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 13 2017, 6:04 PM
 Yes, this is all true. For example I switched my home off power grid. Instead I put a bucket every morning in my back yard to collect the light particles that fall from the sun. Then when it gets dark I spray them through a nozzle using an isothermal heat engine, which as Pentcho teaches us, does not costs me anything because it draws energy from the surrounding heat in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Often I collect more particle than I use. I keep the extra in jars in my basement, for these long winter evenings. My front yard is full of various fountains and water cascades that use the eternal waterfalls that Pentcho invented. Inside my house I have an elevator that is powered by contracting polymers using nothing but power from the surroundings, again violating the second law. I am sure that he and all his fans here are benefiting from his ingenuity just like I do. Thank you Pentcho for these wonderful gifts to humanity.
Pentcho Valev

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 10:31 AM
 Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs It is totally unreasonable to believe that Newton's particle theory of light correctly describes radial fall of photons but gives an incorrect prediction for the gravitational deflection of light. The two motions are identical - the gravitational deflection of light is, essentially, a temporary fall of light towards some massive object. Soldner cannot have been incorrect as far as his method is concerned: "Soldner is now mostly remembered for having concluded - based on Newton's Corpuscular theory of light - that light would be diverted by heavenly bodies. In a paper written in 1801 and published in 1804, he calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by a star... [...] Albert Einstein calculated and published a value for the amount of gravitational light-bending in light skimming the Sun in 1911, leading Phillip Lenard to accuse Einstein of plagiarising Soldner's result. Lenard's accusation against Einstein is usually considered to have been at least partly motivated by Lenard's Nazi sympathies and his enthusiasm for the Deutsche Physik movement. At the time, Einstein may well have been genuinely unaware of Soldner's work, or he may have considered his own calculations to be independent and free-standing, requiring no references to earlier research. Einstein's 1911 calculation was based on the idea of gravitational time dilation. In any case, Einstein's subsequent 1915 general theory of relativity argued that all these calculations had been incomplete, and that the "classic" Newtonian arguments, combined with light-bending effects due to gravitational time dilation, gave a combined prediction that was twice as high as the earlier predictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner Soldner's result could still be wrong, due to using wrong parameters. Perhaps no calculation using as parameter the mass of the Sun is reliable: "After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative [...] A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory." http://people.com/archive/after-he-said-einstein-was-wrong-physicist-henry-hill-learned-that-fames-benefits-are-relative-vol-18-no-10 Pentcho Valev
Anonymous

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 1:43 PM
 "It is totally unreasonable to believe.." Here is the difference between you and your layman sidekicks and true scientists. Your "conclusions" are driven by beliefs, instead of proofs.
roger

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 7:29 PM
 Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Anonymous

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 7:41 PM
 There are standards that science adheres to, which is something that you are unable to comprehend since, as we established earlier, you equate speculation to theory. Actually your position is very funny. So according to you if there is scientific proof does not exist, you can make any idiotic claim, and it should be as valid as any other. And coming up with psychology articles is ridiculous. Psychology, as it is well-known, has nothing to do with natural sciences.
roger

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 7:44 PM
 you have nothing to do with science
roger

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 7:47 PM
 Is psychology a science? Yes, in the sense that psychology was defined by the application of scientific method(s) and psychologists conduct valuable research and have developed some key insights into animal behavior, cognition, consciousness, and the human condition. But a key feature of real scientific knowledge is that there is a clear, consensual center that provides a foothold to describe how (portions of) the world actually work. And it is here that psychology falls down in ways that physics, chemistry and biology do not. And it is in that sense that psychology is not a real science. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate
roger

# Re: Variable Speed of Light Particles in Gravitational Field

September 14 2017, 7:56 PM
 >>>So according to you if there is scientific proof does not exist, you can make any idiotic claim, and it should be as valid as any other. gibberish, what you probably meant was- >>So according to you scientific proof does not exist, THEREFORE you can make any idiotic claim, and it should be as valid as any other. provided it conforms to Empirical testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research and then it becomes the problem of empirically equivalent theories The instrumentalist argument from the underdetermination of theories by data runs as follows: (1) every theory has empirically equivalent rivals; (2) the only warrant for believing one theory over another is its possession of a greater measure of empirical virtue; (3) therefore belief in any theory is arbitrary. In this paper, I examine the status of the first premise. Several arguments against the universal availability of empirically equivalent theoretical rivals are criticized, and four algorithms for producing empirically equivalent rivals are defended. I conclude that the case for the first premise of the argument from underdetermination is very strong. The disposition of the argument itself depends on the fate of the second premise. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00166499

 Respond to this message