Today's cosmologists develop the concepts of Big Bang and Black Hole
based on the implicit (sometimes explicit) assumption that the speed
of light does not vary with the gravitational potential, that is,
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) (and any other equation
predicting variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field)
is wrong:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51:
"En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi? Que la
vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même. (...) La théorie
de 1911 était fausse, et Einstein la jeta à la poubelle sans regret,
en compagnie de quelques autres impasses."

On the other hand, other Einsteinians teach that Einstein's 1911
equation is correct and even suggest that the gravitational redshift
is a consequence of the variation of the speed of light in a
gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]….Indeed, this
is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of
Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35,
1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity
by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You
can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book “The Principle
of Relativity.” 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+V/c^2) where V is the
gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light
c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT factor."

Needless to say, Einstein zombie world is invariably singing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" but still some day Einsteinians will have to answer the
question: If Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct, what
will remain of current Big Bang and Black Hole theories?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On 2 Oct, 10:27, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> Today's cosmologists develop the concepts of Big Bang and Black Hole
> based on the implicit (sometimes explicit) assumption that the speed
> of light does not vary with the gravitational potential, that is,
> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) (and any other equation
> predicting variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field)
> is wrong:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
> in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
> that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
> He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
> hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
> although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
> forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
> in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
> and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
> cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
> back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
> Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
> travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
> second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
> light, and make it fall back."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51:
> "En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
> vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
> soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
> alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
> existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
> ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi? Que la
> vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
> ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même. (...) La théorie
> de 1911 était fausse, et Einstein la jeta à la poubelle sans regret,
> en compagnie de quelques autres impasses."
>
> On the other hand, other Einsteinians teach that Einstein's 1911
> equation is correct and even suggest that the gravitational redshift
> is a consequence of the variation of the speed of light in a
> gravitational field:
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]….Indeed, this
> is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of
> Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35,
> 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity
> by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You
> can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book “The Principle
> of Relativity.” 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+V/c^2) where V is the
> gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light
> c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
> the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT factor."
>
> Needless to say, Einstein zombie world is invariably singing "Divine
> Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
> relativity" but still some day Einsteinians will have to answer the
> question: If Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct, what
> will remain of current Big Bang and Black Hole theories?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...***yahoo.com

How was the equation derived?? c' = c(1-v^2/c^2) is what the length/
time way to measure the implied light speed would be.for relative
velocity frame.i.e. length contraction over time dilation. which would
allow for the speed of light slowing toward a stop.

The respective acceleration transform woud be a' = a(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

Note this predicts an infered speed of light, the locally obsrved
speed is always invariant at c. Being invariant does not imply it is
constant!!

cheers
jacko