James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

This implies that the variation of the speed of falling light is proportional to the variation of frequency (proved by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment):

Albert Einstein Institute: "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.html

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

Finally, variation of the speed of falling light as per Newton's theory implies NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity,
> p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept
> that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as
> material bodies."

US steals 60 trucks full of oil and Wheat from Syria
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/9JWoomiMYDNU

Meanwhile in America, slava uKraine
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QSNUyMxmv9AW

OK This is really strange. Is this some kind of NBA matrix glitch？America
is stupid. Cacanada even more. Check this out
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/jR93PEbXRFST

UK Nordstream pipeline Sabotage ？ Kim Dotcom, YES because... (1)
https://www.%62%72%69%67%68%74%65%6f%6e.com/b65d2d15-4e9a-4d2d-8086-
e5e9437428c0-1

Israel Accused of Harvesting Human Organs From Ukraine War Dead
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/NC8VvhWa5Dt4

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:58:40 PM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629
>
> Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
>
> This implies that the variation of the speed of falling light is proportional to the variation of frequency (proved by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment):
>
> Albert Einstein Institute: "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.html
>
> 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
>
> Finally, variation of the speed of falling light as per Newton's theory implies NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION.
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

To all
No, light is not falling. Instead the ETHER is falling with the escape velocity, e. Therefore, light speed is c+e in direction down and c-e in direction up and c in tangential direction.
2-way light speed is therefore c(1-ee/cc) in radial direction and c in tangential direction.
We have only measured the 2-way speed in tangential direction only. So, we have always found c.
With best regards from _______________________ John-Erik

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 1:41:21 AM UTC+1, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:58:40 PM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629
> >
> > Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
> >
> > This implies that the variation of the speed of falling light is proportional to the variation of frequency (proved by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment):
> >
> > Albert Einstein Institute: "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.html
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Finally, variation of the speed of falling light as per Newton's theory implies NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION.
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> To all
> No, light is not falling. Instead the ETHER is falling with the escape velocity, e. Therefore, light speed is c+e in direction down and c-e in direction up and c in tangential direction.
> 2-way light speed is therefore c(1-ee/cc) in radial direction and c in tangential direction.
> We have only measured the 2-way speed in tangential direction only. So, we have always found c.
> With best regards from _______________________ John-Erik

See this
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/4473
https://www.academia.edu/90134483/The_Big_Bang_illusion_from_Newtons_mathematical_idealism

On 1/6/23 6:41 PM, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> the ETHER is falling with the escape velocity, e. Therefore, light
> speed is c+e in direction down and c-e in direction up and c in
> tangential direction.

Let me consider your "e" to be a variable to be determined.

> 2-way light speed is therefore c(1-ee/cc) in radial direction and c
> in tangential direction. We have only measured the 2-way speed in
> tangential direction only. So, we have always found c.

Nonsense. The GPS relies on the one-way speed of light being c
ISOTROPICALLY relative to the ECI coordinates; this includes vertically.
Its accuracy puts a limit on your "e/c" of something like a few parts
per million or so. So your "e" cannot possibly be earth's escape velocity.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 7 January 2023 at 06:36:44 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:41 PM, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > the ETHER is falling with the escape velocity, e. Therefore, light
> > speed is c+e in direction down and c-e in direction up and c in
> > tangential direction.
> Let me consider your "e" to be a variable to be determined.
> > 2-way light speed is therefore c(1-ee/cc) in radial direction and c
> > in tangential direction. We have only measured the 2-way speed in
> > tangential direction only. So, we have always found c.
> Nonsense. The GPS relies on the one-way speed of light being c
> ISOTROPICALLY relative to the ECI coordinates

Yes, GPS is an ether/absolute time model.

The equivalence principle proves Newton's theory of light and disproves Einstein's relativity. This is so obvious that sometimes even Einsteinians unwittingly move in that direction:

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

Yet the official ideology teaches that the equivalence principle is the basis of Einstein's general relativity, and the scientific community believes it.

Similarly, in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment proved Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c+v, and disproved the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. Yet the official ideology teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment played a crucial role in the emergence of Einstein's special relativity, and the scientific community believes it.

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:27:16 AM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The equivalence principle proves Newton's theory of light and disproves Einstein's relativity. This is so obvious that sometimes even Einsteinians unwittingly move in that direction:
>
> 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
>
> Yet the official ideology teaches that the equivalence principle is the basis of Einstein's general relativity, and the scientific community believes it.
>
> Similarly, in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment proved Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c+v, and disproved the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. Yet the official ideology teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment played a crucial role in the emergence of Einstein's special relativity, and the scientific community believes it.
>
> George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

Tom Roberts, no, GPS does not demand light speed c, but constant light speed, since GPS operates with differences. A contribution from a radial ether wind has the same value in all satellites, since they all are positioned in the same spherical surface. The contribution has also the same value in all receivers on Earth on another spherical surface. So, your arguments are not valid.
With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> since they all are positioned in the same spherical surface.

They aren't. Crank.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:56:47 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > since they all are positioned in the same spherical surface.
> They aren't. Crank.

Pentcho
The (materiel) ether falls like matter. The ether's motion is equal to the escape velocity. So, c+e downwards ans c-e in opposite direction. So, we get c(1-ee/cc) for 2-way light in radial direction, and 2-way speed is all we can see. But in tangential direction (the only direction we have observed) speed is always c.
John-Erik

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5:13:16 PM UTC+1, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:56:47 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> > > since they all are positioned in the same spherical surface.
> > They aren't. Crank.
> Pentcho
> The (materiel) ether falls like matter. The ether's motion is equal to the escape velocity. So, c+e downwards ans c-e in opposite direction. So, we get c(1-ee/cc) for 2-way light in radial direction, and 2-way speed is all we can see. But in tangential direction (the only direction we have observed) speed is always c.
> John-Erik

Dono
All satellites have the same orbiting period. so they are on the same distance to Earth
John-Erik