Wayne, we do not "travel" to the future. It has not been verified. The scientific evidence is crystal clear: clocks clock up motion through space. Yes, we can relocate to a region of high gravitational potential, but when we do, we have simply moved to an environment where the rate of electromagnetic and other motion is reduced. We do not then "travel faster to the future". Instead things are moving slower. That's what's actually happening. There is no evidence of any travel through time. It's merely a figure of speech.

Ever heard of a stasis box? It's a science fiction concept, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(fiction). If I put you in a stasis box, no motion occurs whatsoever. You and every molecule and atom and electron and neutron and proton of your body is rendered utterly immobile. You can't move, you can't think. You see me close the lid and then you immediately see me open the lid to lift you out. When I tell you it's now 2010 you're surprised. And you're even more surprised to find that to "travel to the future" you didn't move at all. Instead, everything else in the universe did.

I'm glad that you acknowledge the value of mathematics. I heartily recommend that you begin using this vital tool. Otherwise no one is going to take you seriously. Right now, you have a piece of literature, not science.


Without showing us mathematics, it's hard to do very much, so I wouldn't attach too much value to your assertion that "nobody has shown that it's wrong." Indeed, from looking over the exchanges here, you've said plenty that's wrong, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. There's a distinction between not having been shown to be wrong, and being wrong but refusing to accept that fact.

I wasn't proposing any removal of time coordinates. What I'm saying is that these time coordinates are derived from motion through space.

I'm not proposing any different calculation scheme, just a different interpretation. My interpretation is preferable because it matches what we see. When you open up the back of a mechanical clock you see cogs moving through space, not travelling through time.

I wouldn't omit it.

The issue here is with what "proper time" actually is. To make a clear distinction, let's say we have two twins A and B. Twin A stays at home on Earth for five years, whilst twin B takes a round trip at 0.8c. We're ignoring acceleration for simplicity. Using 1/√(1 – v²/c²) which is based on Pythagoras' Theorem and the motion of light between parallel mirrors we know that twin B experiences a time dilation factor of 1/√(1 – .8²/1²) = 1/√(1 – .64) = 1/√(.36) = 1/.6. Thus for twin B, only 3 years elapse. One twin experiences a proper time of 5 years whilst the other experiences a proper time of 3 years. Each twin verifies this using his light clock, which has at its heart a light beam bouncing between parallel mirrors. But what underlies this proper time? It's merely the cumulative measure of the local motion of light between the parallel mirrors. For twin B, the rate of this local motion "in his reference frame" is reduced by his travelling motion through space. He can't detect this locally, he doesn't know he's time dilated because as pair production tells us "we are made of light". So the same effect is imposed on the electrons within his body, and we can apply the same principle to the protons and neutrons. That's all it is. When you delve down to what proper time actually is, it always comes back to motion. The motion of light.

I pay careful attention to the actual descriptions of physical systems, based upon what we see and observe. We do not see world lines, or light cones, or spacetime, or a block universe. We see space and motion through it. This yields a different interpretation of the mathematics, which is in accord with Einstein. Einstein spoke of a variable speed of light, of a non-constant guv causing curvilinear motion, and in 1949 of time being cofounded with motion through space. Dismissing my argument which is in accord with Einstein using a demand for mathematics is a non-argument that utterly fails to address the salient points of this thread.

It is a coincidence. I don't run from mathematics. Or anything else. But I will refuse to spend hours on mathematics when it cannot explain the difference between two different interpretations of the mathematics we already have.

Yes, post links to your examples. I will not accede the point.

The mathematical details do not need to be addressed. The situation is extremely simple. Einstein told us that a gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. That was in his Leyden Address. We have robust evidence that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is occuring between the galaxies but not within. We say the galaxies are gravitationally bound, and we use the raisins-in-the-cake analogy: So space is expanding around a galaxy but not within a galaxy, and this will create a shell of inhomogeneous space. That's a gravitational field, with no causative matter. Hence flat galactic rotation curves. It's very simple. So simple, that I put it to you that a request for mathematical details are a disingenuous attempt to bury the awful truth.

I simply cannot explain the difference between Einstein's GR and the modern interpretation of GR using mathematics. I cannot use mathematics to tell you what the mathematics means. Hence I decline your request.

Dismissing what Einstein said as "cherry picking" is of no merit, and you are merely repeating it. For the record, here's a key paragraph:

"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events".

Whilst Einstein says this aether is devoid of mechanical and kinematical qualities, he also talks of inhomogeneous space, and the need to describe its state by ten potentials. This is not an aether with no properties. If it had no properties, it would not support a gravitational field.

Too be clear, this literature is fiction. Philosophy of science, at least as far as physics is concerned, strives to take the proper mathematical tools into account.

It doesn't take a shorter path. Make it as simple as it can be. Make that clock a light clock, essentially a photon bouncing back and forth between two parallel mirrors. Leave one clock on the table top, and the light path is like this |. let's say the light bounces back and forth twelve times, so the total light path length can be depicted thus: ||||||||||||. Now move the other clock back and forth so the light path looks like this /\/\/\ followed by this /\/\/\. Now measure the light path lengths: they are the same.

The molecules move, the electrons, the atoms. Et cetera.

No, the light path length is the same. That's what determines the duration. You can reduce your subjective time by rapid motion through space, but this then reduces the local motion that is accumulated by your clock. That's what time dilation is.

The elapsed time in the twins paradox has nothing to do with time dilation, it has to do with the way proper time is calculated as a function of coordinate time. Either way, what does this have to do with your lack of understanding of basic physics?

Same repetition of same errors doesn't make science.

Thanks czeslaw. I'll email this to myself so I don't forget it and will follow it up over the weekend. Please PM me if you want to talk offline.

You sure about this? Earlier you were using this as proof of time dilation, so you are contradicting yourself. Again.

Q116: Calculate the length of the light path for the two cases. Use math in order to compare them.

You are accumulating a lot of unanswered challenges again, it is time that you started answering them.

But are they the same locations in space? Two different inertial observers might disagree. They would, however, agree on the same spacetime events.

OK, so let's prove that it was merely a coincidence. You have claimed that inhomogeneous space can account for dark matter.

Post 131A. How does inhomogeneous space account for the rotation curve of a specific galaxy (feel free to choose which one)?

Post 131B. What is the difference between the standard general relativistic analysis of that galaxy and the one that shows there is no need for dark matter?

Post 131C. How does inhomogeneous space account for gravitational lensing around a specific galaxy or galaxy cluster where dark matter is usually used to explain the lensing (feel free to choose which one)?

Post 131D. What is the difference between the standard general relativistic analysis of that galaxy or galaxy cluster and the one that shows there is no need for dark matter?
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6157894
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...ad.php?p=59818
You are making mathematical claims there, as a rotation curve is a mathematical entiry. Show us the mathematics. Show us where the standard mathematical use of general relativity by every single astronomer is incorrect.
I sat in on a class where an astronomer went through the prediction of the perihelion advance of Mercury bit by bit and showed exactly where different elements of relativity theory were doing different work, including elements of the theory you reject.

Post 131E. Do you admit that you cannot actually show where in the actual use of general relativity we can see anything of your interpretation at work?

Post 131F. If you think that you can show us where your interpretation can be seen in a specific example, can you give us the example, along with all relevant mathematical descriptions?
We are not dismissing what Einstein said, we are recognizing your dismissal of what Einstein said because of your cherry-picking. There is a big difference.
Post 131G. Can you demonstrate, for the ten potentials, how they enact elements of your interpretation of general relativity?

I'm not keen on the tesseract, sirjon, or the "passing" of time being due to the continuing expansion of the universe, but I know what you mean. When the universe began to expand, that was the beginning of motion, and so the beginning of time. Interestingly, when you consider the early universe to be a high-energy-density environment, one can expect c to be reduced as per the reduced c in a region of gravitational potential. This means that events within the early universe would have proceeded slowly, whilst the expansion of the universe continued apace. But since we have no yardstick to say that events within the early universe did proceed slowly, the expansion of the universe would look comparatively rapid, hence inflation.

Yet, c does NOT get reduced in a region of gravitational potential.

No, it does not since you are basing fallacy B on fallacy A
You need to read this thread. It applies to your thinking.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Any comments in red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.

I don't quite claim that, I distinguish between cause and effect. Light certainly undergoes curvilinear motion, and people describe this as curved spacetime. I say it's caused by a gradient in c caused by a gradient in vacuum impedance caused by the central matter/energy conditioning the surrounding space. Einstein talked of guv rather than vacuum impedance, but the sense was the same. Here's an analogy: imagine you're swimming underwater in a deep clear pool. In the centre of this pool I've hung a big net bag full of jelly cubes, which have started to dissolve out into the surrounding water, creating a spherical viscosity gradient. You're in scuba gear experimenting with a little clockwork submarine to emulate a photon. You wind it up and set it going past the net bag, and you notice it veers towards it. It doesn't travel in a straight line, instead it travels a curved path, and you interpet this curvilinear motion as "curved spacetime". If however you accompanied this photon and had no external reference point because you were in a mirrored box, you wouldn't know the light followed a curved path. It's like being in a lift in free-fall. It looks straight to you.

This relates to what I was saying to KwalishKid: I pay careful attention to the actual descriptions of physical systems, based upon what we see and observe. We do not see world lines, or light cones, or spacetime, or a block universe. We see space and motion through it. When I gaze up at the clear night sky, I can see space, and the stars. When I see a meteor I see an object in motion through that space. What I cannot do, is point up to that sky and show you a coordinate system, or a reference frame. These things do not in themselves exist. They are artefacts of mathematical abstraction associated with motion and our measurements. When we set aside gravity and the expansion of the universe and restrict ourselves to SR, and then say "we move between frames", what we're actually doing is changing our state of motion through space. This space is marked out by the stars, and the galaxies, and all the things within the universe. These things define that space. And it is motion through the universe that defines the time. The motion of light defines a "universal time" that says the universe has been going for 13.7 billion light years. On top of this our own motion through the universe defines our subjective time. Our time coordinates are nothing more than a plot of cumulative local motion, best understood by the motion of light between parallel mirrors.

Yes, they are the same locations in space. You can understand this by having your two observers set out from A in looping paths at different speeds. It doesn't matter how fast they're going or how they perceive space due to length contraction, they don't miss each other, they collide. Then when you track back and look at the light path lengths of their light clocks, those two light paths are the same length.

Yes, we have one observer a long way away from the black hole, say on earth, and another at the horizon.

No problem.

I beg to differ. Inertial frames have no objective existence. The horizon is the end of the story.

I'm sorry, but this is an abstraction. It doesn't actually happen.

Yes. This is the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical" interpretation, and it's wrong. It's wrong because when measured by the external observer peering through a telescope at an infalling light clock, c reduces in line with gravitational time dilation near the black hole. And at the event horizon, the time dilation is infinite. That means external observers measure c=0 at that location. That means everything stops. The infalling observer's watch stops. He doesn't measure anything, and he doesn't get past the event horizon. His "proper time" is halted, because the c=0 means all local motion is halted. The only time he experiences, is beyond the end of time for our entire universe, and that's where the central point-singularity resides. This means it doesn't exist now, and never ever will. The real singularity is at the event horizon, and it is not a point, it is a surface. This is the Weinberg "field" interpretation, a frozen-star concept that concurs with Einstein's view. Note that this makes the black hole more of a hole than the standard view, because it becomes a hole in space and time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar for something similar, though imperfect. Also see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm for some information on the interpretations, even though the author advocates the former interpretation rather than the latter.

OK, look at the time, I must go.

I would like to see an answer to these questions

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Both of the above paragraphs directly contradict the math of General Relativity (whether it's Weinberg's field interpretation or not) if you use either Eddington-Finkelstein or Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. Your statement is not a matter of interpretation. It is a claim that is flat out contradictory to the math of General Relativity, which you claim is the same in your interpretation.

I'll highlight my question.
So, since your claim has to be based on different mathematics than that in GR (since it contradicts it), can you show, mathematically, using either Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates or Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, that the INFALLING OBSERVER actually see's his own time stop an he doesn't see( or feel) himself cross the event horizon?

Since you are so fond of wiki, here are some statements from the wiki pages of these two coordinate systems:

For the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates: One advantage of this coordinate system is that it shows that the apparent singularity at the Schwarzschild radius is only a coordinate singularity and not a true physical singularity.

For Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates:Note that the metric is perfectly well-defined and non-singular at the event horizon.

Note that both of those statements are in direct contradiction of your two claims above.

Then this is perfect, right? This will have nothing to do with interpretations. It has everything to do with math. Since your claim is in direct contradiction to the math of GR, the math behind your claim has to be different than GR. Here's your chance to show us the math behind your claim.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

No, he didn't make a mistake. As I said in my opening post, in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where you can see c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²). In 1912 he said "This is where, in my opinion, the limit of validity of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light... lies." See: http://i38.tinypic.com/10wm877.jpg. In 1914 he said this: http://i38.tinypic.com/25upl46.jpg, in 1915 he said this: http://i34.tinypic.com/2qvavib.jpg, and in 1916, again as per my OP, he said die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert which translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word geschwindigkeit translates into speed, and he's talking about the limitations of the SR postulate, which is the constancy of the speed of light. We know that this postulate was a constant speed rather than a constant vector-quantity velocity, because a mirror changes the velocity of a beam of light. And Einstein knoew about mirrors. So there's the historical evidence, it's cut and dried. Einstein talks repeatedly about the variable speed of light, for year after year.

Now, why don't you show me where he corrected this so-called mistake? Simply post a link along with an excerpt. Supply the historical evidence.

I've dedicated considerable time to your "challenges", now please dedicate some to mine instead of erecting a hundred-question distraction from this discussion.

As far as I comprehended it, as to a layman's view - light is being affected by gravitation (that is mainstream). Correct me if I am wrong, Einstein suggested that we should 'standardize' the speed of light 'c' (to be constant) as a universal reference in 'relative' to the motions of other bodies. Now the dilation of time due to c being delayed is due to a reason that it is being slowed down by the high-energy-density environment (or thickness?) of the early universe?

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

I could, but it would take me too long to do so, so I refuse. See http://www.donaldgburkhard.com/pdfs/dgbch2.pdf for an indication of the work involved. I refuse because you dismiss the many Einstein quotes re the variable speed of light as "cherry picking", and I have no confidence that you will find a similarly specious reason to dismiss any analysis of Mercury.

I agree with Through such investigations the true mechanism of gravitation will be hopefully found but not with and a workable theory of quantum gravity may finally be established. For other readers, here’s the URL again http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0256-307X/25/5/014 along with the the title and abstract:

Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime
Abstract. The strong similarities between the light propagation in a curved spacetime and that in a medium with graded refractive index are found. It is pointed out that a curved spacetime is equivalent to an inhomogeneous vacuum for light propagation. The corresponding graded refractive index of the vacuum in a static spherically symmetrical gravitational field is derived. This result provides a simple and convenient way to analyse the gravitational lensing in astrophysics.

Yes of course.

Fermat’s principle says the path taken by a ray of light is the path that can be traversed in the least time, and equates to curvilinear motion which is usually described as curved spacetime.

Huge. I show Einstein talking of inhomogeneous space and a variable speed of light caused by a non-constant guv which causes light to follow a curvilinear path, and I talk of gravitational lensing as a refraction. This published paper supports my case well, as I’m sure you must concede.

Please refer to the paper.

I cannot explain it using mathematics. If I could, you could, and anybody else could. I can only explain it via an analysis of axiomatic terms that shows why time dilation is in fact a reduced c.

Then let me reword it more simply. You use the local motion of light to define your seconds and then your metres, which you then use to say that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Regardless of the actual speed of light and whether or not you are in free space or down at the surface of a planet, you use the local motion of light to define your seconds and metres, so you will always say that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Since gravitational time dilation tells you that the seconds can vary, and since the second is defined by the motion of light, you can be confident that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential.

You cannot. It defines time and distance.

No, one can only determine a comparative rate.

Those Einstein quotes are not fiction, nor is inhomogeneous space, nor is the paper above, and nor are my opening posts or other posts. If you can offer no constructive dialogue, and can only resort to cherry-picking dismissal and a retreat to mathematics, then you are in denial, and you have clearly lost the argument. For the record, my position isn't just Einstein's position, it's Newton's too:

"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another? ...Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

This refers to queries 30, 20, and 21, which are on pages 374 and 350 of my copy of Opticks. When you understand his thinking, you can understand why Newton was so interested in light.

This is historical evidence and logic. Those assertions are backed by quotes from Einstein. No equations can assist with the theme of this thread, which is that the modern interpretation of relativity contradicts Einstein.

I dodge nothing. Instead I allocate my time to various contributors, who it seems continue to dismiss what Einstein said.

You ignored it last time: are you willing to admit this is incorrect?

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

It doesn't matter what Einstein said. Just because he is Einstein, it doesn't make it true. He isn't infallible. Science isn't a religion that relies on the words of a prophet.

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

The title of this thread is Einstein's Gravity. Quoting Einstein talking of the variable speed of light and inhomogeneous space is most certainly relevant, and so is the scientific evidence that supports it. When you peer through a telescope at two astronauts carrying light clocks, then when one of them is near a black hole, you will see the light going slower. It's as simple as that. So please, don't give me no further interpretation or analysis of His theory is allowed. Look in the mirror Henna, and think of the modern interpretation of general relativity: no further interpretation or analysis of this theory is allowed.

It comes to the conclusion that he meant speed, because he was talking about the postulate of SR. And the word he actually said was geschwindigkeit. That's speed. Then it says this interpretation makes good physical sense, then says a more modern interpretation is that c is absolutely constant, then it says it doesn't make sense to say it varies. It contradicts itself.

Did I hear that correctly? We're talking about relativity. It does matter what Einstein said.

He certainly wasn't infallible, but it's the scientific evidence that makes it true. You can see the light going slower. It's there in the Shapiro delay, and it's even programmed into GPS. Those satellites use atomic clocks, and those clocks use microwaves. That's light. The clocks go slower because the light goes slower. Because the motion of light defines our time. It's there in the definition of the second, and the second varies.

Of course not. Science relies on evidence, so look to the evidence. Don't dismiss this evidence on the advice of modern-day prophets who dismiss Einstein's relativity along with his inhomogeneous space and variable c.

I didn't ignore it, I must have just missed it. No, I don't admit its incorrect. Photons and neutrinos are massless chargeless action travelling at c as far as we can tell. The neutrino may turn out to travel at less than c, whereupon it would have some mass, and then if its speed varied, its mass would vary.

You are fond of wikipedia links, so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

But the electron does exhibit angular momentum, and its orientation does change with a spin-flip. That demands motion. Besides, as I said earlier, electron spin is two-dimensional. Do not think of spin as something that cannot be explained because "spin is a fundamental characteristic property of of elementary particles". It isn't fundamental, combine an electron with a positron, and you lose that part of the spin that keeps a 511keV photon tied up as an electron, or positron. It never ceases to surprise me that pair production and annihilation remain so utterly unexplained in modern physics. See this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 for a good effort:

The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu
Abstract: Through investigating history, evolution of the concept, and development in the theories of electrons, I am convinced that what was missing in our understanding of the electron is a structure, into which all attributes of the electron could be incorporated in a self-consistent way. It is hereby postulated that the topological structure of the electron is a closed two-turn Helix (a so-called Hubius Helix) that is generated by circulatory motion of a mass-less particle at the speed of light. A formulation is presented to describe an isolated electron at rest and at high speed. It is shown that the formulation is capable of incorporating most (if not all) attributes of the electron, including spin, magnetic moment, fine structure constant, anomalous magnetic moment, and charge quantization into one concrete description of the Hubius Helix. The equations for the description emerge accordingly. Implications elicited by the postulate are elaborated. Inadequacy of the formulation is discussed.

I know about neutrinos Henna. And I know about mass too. It's just a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving in aggregate with respect to you. Trap a photon in a mirrored box, and the mass of that "system" is increased by the energy of the photon. Use pair production to trap two photons using only themselves, and you create an electron and a positron. When you create an electron you create a "system" whose mass is increased by the energy of the component photon. The photon momentum p=hf/c is now expressed as inertia. There is a symmetry between the two, it depends on who you say is moving. And get this: there's a sliding scale between. If the action is travelling at c, none of the energy is exhibited as mass. If it's going round and round so it isn't moving in aggregate with respect to you, all of the energy is exhibited as mass. Hence if a neutrino is travelling at c, it has no mass. If however it enjoys an interaction that makes it slow to less than c, then it will have some mass whilst that interaction occurs. The Higgs field ends up being a modern version of Einstein's aether of general relativity. But it doesn't fill space, it is space.

Sorry, I have to go.

Conditions near a event horizon are not validated by tests. It is based on mathematical prediction made by GR. GR has been proven for many conditions but not in extreme cases like the edge of a black hole. (btw. a black hole is also is a prediction of GR).

Therefore I believe this question cannot provide any form of validation towards a new theory.

If GR where to be "incomplete" it is most likely to be wrong in area's of extreme conditions. (just like Newtonian gravity broke down for the precession of Mercury). GR overlapped Newtonian gravity and explained for the precession. If a "better then GR" theory is possible ,this new theory will not overthrow GR, it will be an addition to GR.

Steve

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

This has also been explained to you countless times, it is a mistake, it was written in 1911 when he hadn't yet developed GR and it was corrected long ago. No one besides you goes around quoting this mistake , we all know that the local speed of light is constant. Why you persist in this error is obvious, you don't know the difference between the local and the coordinate speed of light.
In addition you don't understand the difference between velocity and speed.
To prove that, answer the following question:

Q117: How does one obtain the formula for coordinate speed of light?



I will do one better than that.

Q118: Farsight, starting from the light-like metric separation of two events in GR, derive by yourself the Einstein 1911 formula of variable coordinate light speed. This is an exercise that beginner students of GR do in 5 minutes flat in class nowadays. If you don't know how to do it, it is only because you do not know 8-th grade math.



You have dodged every question I asked you, so you have more than 100 challenges that you haven't managed to answer. Not one of them. So, you will need to go back and start working on them.