Einstein's Relativity Is Experimentally Unverifiable
The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):
f = c/L
An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (confirmed by Pound and Rebka), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':
f' = c'/L'
Crucial questions:
c' = ?
L' = ?
Newton's emission theory of light:
c' = c(1+gh/c^2)
L' = c'/f' = L
Einstein's general relativity:
c' = c(1+2gh/c^2)
L' = c'/f' > L
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."
"Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911..
[link:www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm]"...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."
J.D. Franson, Physics Department, University of Maryland: "According to general relativity, the speed of light c as measured in a global reference frame is given by c=c0(1+2phi/c0^2), where c0 is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame."
The increase in wavelength (L'>L) implied by general relativity is obviously absurd, which in a world different from Divine Albert's world would mean that the Pound-Rebka experiment has confirmed Newton and refuted Einstein.
In Divine Albert's world things are more complicated. c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) is not the only prediction taught by Einsteinians - they also teach c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and c'=c:
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "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."
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. (...) Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT."
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "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..."
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. (...) There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."
Einstein's special relativity was deduced from the false assumption (borrowed from the ether theory where light is a continuous field) that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the emitter). Then in his general relativity Einstein made the speed of light variable again, without abandoning the constant-speed-of-light miracles deduced in special relativity. So Einstein's theory of relativity became an INCONSISTENCY - a malignant neoplasm spreading everywhere, explaining and predicting everything and killing the whole scientific organism in the end:
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. (...) Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything."
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology."
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."
Pentcho Valev
