Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

Tom,

You ignore my arguments. That is the problem.

Eckard,

Thank you for your comment above. I had noticed the very large number of comments on your thread and hoped to have a chance to review them. I would be happy to respond to your above remark, but this is probably not the proper thread to continue this on. I will move over to my own thread and attempt to respond.

One problem is "Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures." The nature of these threads supports arguments, although when dealing with other people it is impossible to guarantee that the chain will follow the logic. And figures are not available. This is why I have developed the theory in four books, but that of course does not help in this format.

Congratulations on the interest that your thread has inspired.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

It's a stretch to characterize counterargument and counterexample as ignoring your arguments. I will be doing so from now on, though.

Thank you.

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

You were kind enough to point out above that experimental results can be used as "proof" of a number of unlikely things, and to ask me to coherently summarize recent results that I claim support my theory. I thank you for your interest and also because, in writing this comment, I realized how much has transpired since I submitted my essay.

On these threads I've been challenged by those with their own ideas about reality, including: 1) QM proves reality is 'non-real' and 'non-local', based on Bell's inequality, 2) GR proves reality is 'geometrical' and thus I have no right to speak of a 'field'. 3) QED has dozen place accuracy and thus is unquestionably correct, and 4) 'your' interpretation does not agree 100% with 'my' interpretation, therefore you are wrong.

I believe fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics. For this reason I do not worship current physics. My approach to this is:

1) Quantum mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR) have not been unified, and I believe this reflects problems in both theories. They are idealized mathematical approaches to different scale phenomena.

2) Neither GR nor QM defines mass in unequivocal fashion. GR has no unique definition of mass and local mass is ill-defined. QM needs Higgs to explain mass, and Higgs has yet to appear, therefore I believe mass is the proper place to focus.

3) I believe ONE field to be a better explanation of reality than the HUNDREDS of fields that Susskind and others base their Multi-verse on.

4) One gravitational field seems to explain how the physical universe evolved from an initial state, the 'big bang' to our known universe.

5) Einstein's GR and Maxwell's GEM equations lead to a C-field that is the gravito-magnetic analog of the magnetic field. The electric field E is sourced by charge, the gravity field G is sourced by mass. The magnetic field B is induced by moving charge and the gravito-magnetic field C is induced by moving mass.

6) G and C are non-linear and hence yield Yang-Mills equations. The topology implied by the C-field is a Calabi-Yau manifold (that is a solution to Einstein's equations).

7) The C-field non-linearities lead to an explanation for all the known particles and particle families of the Standard Model, without any of the dozens of postulated particles, none of which have been seen.

8) Recent Phys Rev Letters have explained the 'fly-by' mysteries and other cosmological mysteries as C-field-based phenomena. The Gravity Probe B experiment has proved the existence of 'frame dragging' which is the 'geometric' approach to the C-field. The effect is real. If one prefers a geometric explanation, one says 'frame dragging'. If one prefers a field interpretation, one says C-field. The same equations lead to the effect.

9) Since 1998 it has been known that quantum electrodynamics (QED) has 120 orders of magnitude less energy than was believed. Yet this has been all but ignored by physicists who claim 12-place accuracy for QED. Recently muonic-hydrogen measurements produce only 1-place accuracy in determination of the proton radius. A recent study (PRL 106, 153001) concluded that standard QED approaches are excluded as explanations. The C-field approach would have predicted this proton anomaly.

10) Recent simulations (PRL 106, 151101) have shown that black hole spin-induced C-field vortexes dominate the merger and ringdown of binary black holes. The authors conjecture there is no other important dynamics.

11) Maeda, et al have shown electrons can exist in Bohr orbits if the 'noise' is suppressed, in contrast to the standard QM approach to electrons in orbit.

12) The basic equations of QM can be derived from the C-field, which can in turn be derived from GR. The C-field equation cannot be derived from QM. I conclude that QM is incomplete in Einstein's sense, and therefore no ultimate conclusions about non-local and non-real properties of reality can be drawn from QM calculations such as Bell's. Although Florin disputes this, no one has shown any logical error in the 7-step logic.

13) Peter Jackson and others have caused me to focus on the interaction of the C-field with photons. I have discovered a number of fascinating things, including the implications that it is the C-field that exhibits length contraction and mass increase in relativistic particles, and time dilation in gravity gradients.

14) Additionally, David Bohm ends his 'Quantum Theory' with the statement that QM "implies the need for a new concept of the relation between large scale and small scale properties of a given system." I believe that the non-linearities associated with the C-field explain this scale dependence.

15) The C-field leads to a 'particle-plus-wave reality' that is significantly different from Bohr's 'particle/wave duality'. (see 7-step logic).

16) Other anomalies listed in my essay include Halo neutrons, J/psi decay to three quarks, relative mass order in electron and quark particles, all explained by the C-field, mysterious otherwise. Additionally dark energy and dark matter are implied by the C-field.

Eckard, this is a brief summary of the recent occurrences that I believe all support the C-field as the most probable explanation of the mysteries and anomalies of today's physics. To my knowledge it is the only theory that derives QM from GR, with significant application to cosmological AND particle physics.

If you care to address any of these points I will try to respond to you on my thread.

I will also try to review your theory, but I have already stated that I am weakest where you are strongest, so I'm not sure how much help I can be.

Congratulations again on the amount of interest you have generated as indicated by the number of comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Quantum gravity requires:

Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing.

That space be equally, and both, invisible and visible.

That energy/force be represented consistent with distance in/of space (inertially and gravitationally).

That space be both larger and smaller.

Combining and including opposites.

That space be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in a balanced fashion.

Balanced attraction and repulsion.

That space manifest as gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic energy.

That space be semi-detached from touch.

There has to be some constant to use as a standard. I could state "the speed of light doubled five minutes ago." if space and time changed with the speed of light you have no way of disproving that statement.

If there is gravity waves and if they can travel faster than light why should they be the new standard?

The only place we have a chance of detecting gravity waves is in changes to very dense objects. Light travels slower in a material. When looking at high density objects (neutron stars, super-novas) are we now at a place where we have an "index of refraction" for gamma-rays? We might be looking at slow gamma-rays and not a true change in the speed of light.

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

"fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics". While I should admit having almost no knowledge of current physics as compared to you, I feel having hit some key points that are related to the notion of time and SR.

Let me try and formulate as simple as possible how my view differs from the commonly assumed notion of time: I see the latter an abstract and unlimited to both sides construct that is only partially anchored in the really traceable past.

While I cannot imagine that I am the first one who got aware of this perhaps irrefutable trifle, I guess that others were rejected and ignored because such distinction is at odds with current physics. Tom confronted me with putative evidence for SR. As long as I cannot see how your work relates to SR, I will not yet deal with it. Please do not take it amiss. I do not exclude that GR is at least partially correct.

Regards,

Eckard

If you try to renormalize the speed of light, or set it to a different value, something interesting happens. The Planck length and the rest of the Planck units all adjust accordingingly. Similarly the Bohr radius changes as well. All of this will take place so as to completely hide any change in the speed of light. The speed of light is a parameter for the projective subspace in a Lorentzian manifold. As such this structure is independent of any rescaling of a projective line. Here the lines are the null rays or light cones in spacetime.

Cheers LC

Dear John Donoghue,

Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge, as "spacetime" is a askew fundamentally. I would argue that Space and Time are two immutable constants, equal to the notion of infinities existence, which is a constant we of finite mathematical means will never understand. In other words if a Tree falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound? The Answer is Always "Yes." Time and Space are of that capacity. The refinement of Time and Space, which Space ONLY will be subject to gravity within a finite spectrum is a worthy endeavor, that will enable better understanding of our physics. In other words, Space does not curve or warp, nor does Time, save particles or waves in Space bending their motion based on gravities influences. The misnomer of curved "Spacetime" is a thought problem, that has misled us for too long and your work, I hope will better open perspectives to view the world, as it really is. Both "Finite" and "Infinite" and a twain of which will never meet. Confusing the two has been our scotoma, our myopic view for too long. Note: Our Big Bang Universe in only a Planck's size and 10 fold smaller, relative to the larger Universe beyond our own Big Bang universe. Once we understand the scope of our ultimate "Thought Problem" of the Alpha and the Omega, which has no beginning nor end, we will build upon a foundation that will liberate our sentient intelligence to see, within and possibly beyond our finite limitations.

Your work is a wedge into that inevitable change that physics will provide to us in a much fuller manner someday.

Congratulations to you and your colleagues...

Dear John and Collegues

I appreciate this kind of work(disscusion) though some points are not clear to me. In general I believe that we all do same thing (searching for Knowledge)though we may have different aspects. I think a fundamental problem is that we can not understand something, unless we undretand it's basis

Here are some statement from the collegues "What is well understood can be expressed clearly" from Marcel-Marie LeBel

"Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge" from Russ Otter

which remembers me the qoutation of Betrand Russell "Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position".

I would like you to ckeck the essay named "A Linking Theory of the Structure of Matter from Ultimate elementary particles to Astrophysics" and to have your advice

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Dear Bashir Yusuf,

"fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." Wasn't Edwin Eugene Klingman correct in that? I am trying to show that tense-less physics and some inappropriate putative basics of mathematics relate to improper use of abstraction.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear All,

The answer to how the universe emerged and appears the way it is lies with in us. We just need to introspect ourselves and realize that we are the singularity or one with the universe.

who am I? I am vitual reality, I is absolute truth.

http://sridattadev-theoryofeverything.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Eckard

I agree that Edwin Eugene Klingman correct was correct, saying that "fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." (more general in current physics).

Klingmans essays is one of the essays that I think contain lot of more rational facts including "Yet this cosmological and particle physics explanation for current physics is far simpler than many physicists wish it to be" because, as Robert Godwin says

"One begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction" and many more.

I also suspect the way I expressed my essay, linguistically, because it seems to be different from what I expected others understanding.

However, "If someone claims some improper issue, reason must be included, since reasoning is governing the acceptance of a Scientific Theory" and there is no problem.

The most serious challenge the current Physics is very basic and easy understandable if we change our view to a more conceptual one.

I try to clarify what I think its important and simplest view the nature and the reality behind it. To reach the destiny of Reality, one could follow its right track since it has analogue property.

"to explain any and more fundamental reality, must based on Matter, Space and Time issue, I think is very Important which we could try deeply understand. Here lies foundation of physics. So long, these three terms (Gram, meter and second) are valid we may achieve a rational concept of things. In other words I don't know how to express any reality without this minimum requirement. Otherwise, controversial situation arise here.

Can matter be converted energy? If yes, what is the meaning of Energy? Can matter be converted time? Can matter be converted wave? I already experienced some physicist claiming there are no particles in fundamental level, when tried to get insight, get difficulty can waves exist alone? What makes waves? How particle can a mass-less? How can we explain, an inexistent particle? Many more likely....

When I've tried to answer one of these questions every thing became illogic and some kind comedy. Finally I realized that there important to have at least the most basic units to explain things rationally. Like our word combination makes a sentence which understandable.

Best wishes.

Bashir.

Dear Bashir,

"One begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction". Indeed, the latter is questionable unless one carefully checks what got lost with the abstraction.

While virtually all contemporary physicists including fqxi members seem to be ready to question nearly anything in order to maintain SR and QM, I prefer looking for obvious fallacies affecting foundational reasoning in mathematics as well as in physics. So far, nobody refuted my objections.

I suspect "braking the universe's speed limit" is one more helpless attempt to avoid admission of quite simple mistakes.

Regards,

Eckard

Quantum gravity requires gravitational and electromagnetic equivalency -- with regard to force/energy -- that involves balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion and balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity.

F=ma would then ultimately be shown as balanced -- in any successful understanding of quantum gravity -- in keeping with inertia and gravity that are balanced and equivalent.

Alas, gravity, obviously, is not so weak after all. That is obvious. You see and feel the feet/ground while standing, right?

Dreams fundamentally unify physics and prove everything in this post.

Dear All,

The true and simple mathematical equation zero = infinity, will solve all the complex and intelligent theories physics.

http://sridattadev-theoryofeverything.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html">zero = I = infinity](https://

http://sridattadev-theoryofeverything.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html)

One can see the absolute truth in one self.

Love,

Sridattadev.

I have independently created "TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING".

My main research interests are Physics, Modern Cosmology , Philosophy, Particle physics, Relativity, Time, Theory Of Everything and Economics.

My interests are very broad, extending from origin of the Universe and the origin of life, to the deeply philosophical.

I like to ponder the big questions of existence: How did the universe begin? What is the destiny of mankind? Is there a meaning to the universe? and includes the nature of time, the properties of black holes and quantum field theory.

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING

[Time Cosmology: Time to re-study Time.]

Created and Written by KHALID MASOOD

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING is The Time Universe Theory.

I propose, only Time exists in the Universe. Only Time exists and all that exists is Time.

At the heart of physical sciences is physics, and at the heart of physics is Time. The Universe itself or the laws of nature are time.

Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe itself. You, the computer, everything is part/form of time.

Time is the only entity. Our classical and modern view of the physical world is wrong.

Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive!

No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings. Only "FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY" write Everything of the Universe, including our consciousness and also Theory of Everything!!!

The only truth about the physical universe is that the universe is not physical. Life and matter of the universe, is nothing but a physical illusion.

The smartest phenomenon of the universe is the universe itself.

On the whole universe is shapeless, massless and weightless.I CAN PICK IT UP!!!

Einsteins second law, m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from

pure Energy] raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply

as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, "Mass Without Mass"? are the

best predictions in favour of my "Time Theory of Everything."

In my view the first question is How pure energy drives from time?. The

universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be, as Frank W

ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter Getting to it of his book titled "The

Lightness of Being" [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also

supports my theory. Infinity is finity on the whole.

There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical

properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a universe behind

the physical universe which is dark and primary universe. If a Theory of

Everything is Holy Grail of cosmology, Time Theory of Everything is Holy

Grail of Modern Physics!

Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence

of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs

field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive

universe works!

I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe the universe is not acadamic,

and is not bound by our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, eyes on a

prize particle, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation

of micro black holes is nonsense idea.

Higgs boson is not destiny. We have to re-study TIME and ETERNITY.

Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy,

and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and referred by a unified

primary force of nature. There is a co-ordination force in between God

and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson.

I suggest this force is TIME.

Higgs boson [God particle] should be named Time particle.

Time is invisible presence and the only basic building block of the universe and everything in it.

Time is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final

understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,

that I have given it a nickname: 'The God Force'!

Time is at the very heart of physical discovery from the nature of matter

to the origin of the universe.

It is also a fundamental driver of everything in the universe. Many of

tomorrows discoveries and technologies will emerge from Time physics.

MOTHER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES.

[A union of forces and time]

Time is mother of all fundamental forces.

"Forces-time" in which time exists as fifth force with four fundamental

forces.

Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of

time.

TIME is a coordination force of the universe and multiverse referred by

nature.

Nothing has independent existence except time.

Password of time is in the Mind of God!

Everything in the universe,followed the laws of time.

Tell me about the nature of time, I will create the Universe!!!

If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish

thing!

I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME !

God does not play particles' game with the Universe.

Spacetime has no fourth Dimension.Universe is three dimensional.

The theory of time "t" as a fourth dimension of space, three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is wrong.

All dimensions of space are time's dimensions. Time is not the 4th dimension.

Space is not 3D T, space is 3TD. Time is the distance between two dimensions.

Time is the longest and shortest distance between two dimensions.

Time is mother of all dimensions. Dimensions are the result of time.

TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and

is fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time.

Space is only a display of time.

I believe in infinite extra time dimensions only, and I know what

these dimensions are, but I don't believe time as extra dimension with space.

I dont believe in extra spatial dimensions.

The universe exists in three or 10 dimensions of time.

[as string theory proposed, 10 of space and one of time dimension] There

isnt just one dimension of time, says Itzhak Bars of the University of

Southern California in Los Angeles.There are two. One whole dimension has

until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics [New

scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions

of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of time?

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:

[EXTREME LEVEL COSMOLOGY]

EXTREME LEVEL THEORY:

The study of the theory that all fundamental particles and vibrating one-

dimensional strings are fluctuations of zero-dimensional and unidimensional

Extreme Levels Of Energy.

Extreme Level Fluctuations create the universe.

Extreme level connections create mass, gravity, forces and everything in the universe.

No-particle Proposal:

Elemental building blocks of Nature are not particles.

I dont believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks

of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative

Fluctuating Extreme Levels hypothesis which is a part of my Time Theory of

Everything [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic

building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of Fluctuating

Extreme Levels of energy. In Extreme Level Theory of time, Extreme Levels

correspond to different entities and quantities.

EXTREME LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS OF TIME CREATE AND DETERMINE FATE OF EVERYTHING. If Extreme Level Theory

proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes

in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory,

subatomic particles were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy.

Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits

that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like Fluctuating Extreme

Levels and not like vibrating or dancing strings. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both.

Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.

About the "Origin of Mass."

For decades, the prevailing view in physics agrees that the Higgs field gives mass to matter, with the mediated by a boson particle called Higgs.

But no one has seen the Higgs boson yet, despite the considerable time and money spent in his quest to particle accelerators.

Time Field:

The mass comes from the interaction of matter with the "Time Field" or "field Time" and not from field Higgs. There is noHiggs Field.

Time field is "zero point field" and zero energy state of time-space.

Time field is the lowest energy [zero-energy] state of time. That is extreme level of time in my T.T.O.E.

TIME THEORY OF GRAVITY

TIME GRAVITY:

Gravity is time's force.

I believe in my 'physical' motto: "Time tells space how to create, space

tells time how to expand and bend."

Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of

time.

Time is the distance between two places.

Time is the longest and shortest distance between two places.

Gravity is a manifestation of Time-space.

P.S: It's Time-space and not space-Time. TIME COMES FIRST.

Our entire research focus must be on "How time interact with matter and

energy?" and "Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other?"

Time can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, GRAVITY.....

just about anything honestly.

Time theory of gravity is the best rival of General Theory of Relativity and

Quantum Loop Gravity.

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING will change the phenomena of new physics-extra dimensions, entanglement, entropy and information, black holes, tunneling, Bose-Einstein Condensates, chaos and complexity, dark matter, dark energy and meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.

It's not time, it's matter which is disappearing from the universe.

Time is God, God Time.

THE UNIVERSE IS A TIME MACHINE.

The Universe Is nothing but a Time travel.

God can't exists outside of Time. Nothing exists outside of Time.

I am part of the universe, as my heart is part of me. Therefore I am part of God.

Khalid Masood

khalidcustoms@gmail.com

Street Address: 36-B, HBFC, Block-A, Faisal Town, Lahore,

Pakistan.

Phone: 00923334642637

Variable Speed of Light in Gravity

The top of a tower of height h emits light downwards. As the light reaches the ground, its speed relative to the ground is:

A) c' = c(1+gh/c^2) (Newton's emission theory)

B) c' = c(1+2gh/c^2) (Einstein's general relativity)

C) c' = c (Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox)

where c is the initial speed of the light (relative to the emitter). The frequency as measured by observers on the ground (e.g. Pound and Rebka) is:

A') f' = f(1+gh/c^2)

where f is the initial frequency (as measured by the emitter). Clearly A' is compatible with A and incompatible with B and C. That is, the Pound-Rebka experiment actually confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and refuted any different variation.

Pentcho Valev

Gravitational Frequency Shift Disproves Both Special and General Relativity

The top of a tower of height h emits light downwards. If, as the light reaches the ground, its speed relative to the ground is:

c' = c(1 + kgh/c^2)

then, in gravitation-free space, as the observer starts moving towards the light source with (small) speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to:

c' = c + kv

Newton's emission theory of light says k=1.

Einstein's general relativity says k=2.

Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox and many other Einsteinians say k=0.

Clever Einsteinians know that k=1 is the only reasonable solution, and although they would not discuss the issue explicitly, k=1 is implicit in their interpretations of the gravitational and Doppler frequency shifts:

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

Substituting f=c/L (L is the wavelength) into Fowler's equation gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L = c(1+gh/c^2)/L = c'/L

where f' is the frequency measured by both the observer "stationary in the earth's gravitational field" and an equivalent observer who, in gravitation-free space, moves with speed v=gh/c towards the emitter. Accordingly, c'= c+v = c(1+gh/c^2) is the speed of light relative to those two observers. Both special and general relativity are violated.

Pentcho Valev