"However, it was two years after special relativity, in 1907, that Einstein had what he'd later refer to as his happiest thought: the equivalence principle." https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/einstein-shift/

The equivalence principle proves Newton's variable speed of light and, accordingly, disproves gravitational time dilation:

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: "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that 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

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics : "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.html

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

Pentcho Valev

Here Pound and Snider honestly inform the reader that their experiment predicts variation of the speed of the photons identical to the variation of the speed of material objects in free fall (Newton's variable speed of light):

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

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

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:24:42 AM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Here Pound and Snider honestly inform the reader that their experiment predicts variation of the speed of the photons identical to the variation of the speed of material objects in free fall (Newton's variable speed of light):
>
> 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
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

In 1801Von Soldner, devotedly following Laplace centesimal metrics and rigorous measurements of acceleration of gravity in
different points of Europe and Africa, derived from such elementary "constant" (also following Euler) to the trajectory of light
grazing the surface of ANY celestial body. His famous 0.875" deflection of light grazing the surface of the Sun was PLAGIARIZED
by Einstein in 1911. No need for von Soldner to mention the hypothesis of corpuscles of light having mass.

He, single-handedly, derived that the light followed a hyperbolic trajectory when passing by massive celestial bodies. A Masterpiece.

On Monday, 23 January 2023 at 14:34:18 UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:24:42 AM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Here Pound and Snider honestly inform the reader that their experiment predicts variation of the speed of the photons identical to the variation of the speed of material objects in free fall (Newton's variable speed of light):
> >
> > 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
> >
> > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> In 1801Von Soldner, devotedly following Laplace centesimal metrics and rigorous measurements of acceleration of gravity in
> different points of Europe and Africa, derived from such elementary "constant" (also following Euler) to the trajectory of light
> grazing the surface of ANY celestial body. His famous 0.875" deflection of light grazing the surface of the Sun was PLAGIARIZED
> by Einstein in 1911. No need for von Soldner to mention the hypothesis of corpuscles of light having mass.
>
> He, single-handedly, derived that the light followed a hyperbolic trajectory when passing by massive celestial bodies. A Masterpiece.

A Masterpiece? Quite a basic calculation and a well known
result - assuming massive light. Relativistic liars are
persuading it's a prediction of Newtonian mechanics.
A nonsense, of course, as usual.

And Einstein's result was different - not that it required
this riemannian spacetime mumbo jumbo, an easy one
assuming e=mc^2 and conservation laws.