The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity

[Pentcho Valev]

An extremely dangerous comment in Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:

http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2015/02/do-black-hole-firewalls-have-observable.html
"Amos said... Uncle Al wrote: " Photons and matter never fall identically within a gravitational field, by a factor of 2." What do you mean by that? If, for example, we could measure the deflection of neutrinos (moving at nearly the speed of light) from a distant star as they graze the Sun, are you saying the deflection would differ from the deflection of light by a factor of 2? It's hard for me to imagine such a gross violation of the equivalence principle."

This "factor of 2" is the nightmare of Einstein's general relativity. On the one hand, Einsteinians are forced to teach it insofar as it is essential in the mythology started by Eddington in 1919. On the other, they never discuss questions like the one Amos raises above (Sabine Hossenfelder hasn't even seen Amos' comment):

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"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."

Only in moments of mental aberration do Einsteinians comment on the "factor of 2", and awful news spreads throughout Einstein schizophrenic world then. Here is an example: In a gravitational field, the speed of falling photons must increase twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons must be 2g):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
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."

Other Einsteinians, in moments of mental aberration, are curious to know what Einstein himself has said about the speed of light in a gravitational field, and the horror becomes even greater. The "factor of 2" is still there, but the speed of falling photons absurdly DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) 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
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. 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. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77227/speed-of-light-in-a-gravitational-field
John Rennie: The variation of the velocity of light with distance from the black hole looks like:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/XlKh0.gif

Finally, in moments of mental aberration, some Einsteinians teach that the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. This is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course and the horror becomes unbearable:

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf
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."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
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..."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." [That is what the emission theory says - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g.]

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2013/Lectures/l13.pdf
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."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
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..."

However, as in the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
"The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity."

So, as in the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, we have an exact experiment apparently compatible with two mutually incompatible theories. This cries for explanation but Einsteinians will remain forever silent - you cannot expect fraudsters to explain their fraud. The problem can only be be dealt with by antirelativists (cranks, crackpots, trolls etc.). Are there (two) logically valid approaches allowing the Pound-Rebka experiment to be compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's relativity? The answer is yes. The following arguments are both valid:

Argument 1 (consistent with Newton's emission theory of light)

Premise 1: If the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f (as measured by the emitter), an observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2). (This is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.)

Premise 2: There is no gravitational time dilation.

Premise 3: The wavelength remains unchanged as the light falls.

Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is g, like the acceleration of ordinary falling objects. The observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

Argument 2 (consistent with Einstein's relativity):

Premise 1: If the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f (as measured by the emitter), an observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2). (This is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.)

Premise 2: There IS gravitational time dilation.

Premise 3: The wavelength decreases as the light falls - if it is λ at the top of the tower, it will be λ'=λ/(1+gh/c^2) at the bottom.

Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is NEGATIVE, -2g (that is, the speed of the light DECREASES as the light falls). Yet the observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be c (unchanged).

The conclusion above, although validly deducible from the premises, is idiotically unrealistic and can be regarded as an answer to the following question: What ad hoc hypothesis should be introduced if one wishes gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect Einstein fabricated in 1911, to remain consistent with the theory? Answer: The speed of falling photons should DECREASE - in the gravitational field of the Earth their acceleration should be NEGATIVE, -2g.

Analogously, in 1889 FitzGerald and Lorentz essentially asked the question: What ad hoc hypothesis should be introduced if one wishes the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light, a tenet of the ether theory, to remain consistent with the theory? The answer was: Any material body should be contracted in the direction of its motion by a factor of (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2).

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

According to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity idiotically DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g. In my previous posting I showed that the idiocy was unavoidable - the acceleration "-2g" can be regarded as a parameter, or a fudge factor, introduced into the "theory" in order to make it compatible with gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect Einstein fabricated in 1911:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant, dark energy, dark matter and inflation. (...) In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation."

The above definition draws the attention to another fudge factor, Einstein's cosmological constant:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/09/einstein-right-and-wrong/
"In 1917 Einstein published a paper on the application of the theory of relativity to the universe at large—cosmology. He had decided that the universe was stationary—neither expanding nor contracting—so he added a term, the cosmological constant, to his original equations with a value of the constant, the Λ in the above equation, chosen to guarantee this. He abandoned this once it was shown in the 1920s by Edwin Hubble that the universe was actually expanding. Now it has been shown that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—so the cosmological term is given a new value, the dark energy, now adjusted to produce the acceleration."

The making of Einstein's general relativity (as well as its subsequent development) consisted in endlessly introducing, withdrawing and changing equations and parameters (fudge factors) "in order to make it fit observations or expectations". Needless to say, this is not a deductive theory and even not a theory at all. Unlike special relativity (which is deductive), general relativity is an empirical model:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Note that the parameters of the empirical model, e.g. the acceleration "-2g" and the cosmological constant, "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property".

Here Michel Janssen describes endless empirical fudging and fitting until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein informs the gullible world that his approach was deductive:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein is blatantly lying of course - his general relativity was the result of purely empirical gropings (changing and fudging equations until maximum fit with known in advance results and pet assumptions is reached):

https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Michel Janssen: "So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes/
"In 1916 Einstein found what he considered a glitch in his new theory of general relativity. His equations showed that the contents of the universe should be moving— either expanding or contracting. But at the time, the universe seemed the very definition of stasis. All the data, facts, and phenomena known in the early 1900s said that the Milky Way was the cosmos itself and that its stars moved slowly, if at all. Einstein had presented the definitive version of the general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences the previous year, and he was not inclined to retract it. So he invented a fudge factor, called lambda, that could function mathematically to hold the universe at a standstill. [...] Lambda, also known as the cosmological constant, has come in handy of late."

http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Universe-Ken-Croswell/dp/0684845946
Ken Croswell, Magnificent Universe, p. 179: "Ever since, the cosmological constant has lived in infamy, a fudge factor concocted merely to make theory agree with observation."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's idiotic prediction that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES is a nightmare only for ordinary Einsteinians; the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana teach it with ease:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-QqYCSzF4
At the Annual Philosophy of Physics Conference, Gravity and Geometry: Centenary Perspectives on General Relativity, John Norton presented this lecture, entitled, "Einstein’s Discovery of the General Theory of Relativity". John Norton (13:14): "The deeper you are in the [gravitational] field, linearly, the slower the light gets."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. [...] It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

[Louis Savain]

Wow, wow and wow. So, to make a long story short, both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are wrong about the acceleration of light in a gravitational field. GR is doubly wrong because it predicts negative acceleration (go figure). Thus both theories are either falsified or incomplete.

It is obvious from the above that the equivalence principle is only valid for massive particles and not for massless particles. Why? I have a hypothesis that explains the discrepancy but before I bring it out, can anybody tell me if this problem has been solved in a satisfactory manner by anybody?

Let me add that it is also obvious that there is something about motion that physicists do not understand. Maybe they are blinded by one or more ingrained assumption?