From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

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]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/histo.../1911_35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

A: 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

B: 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4 is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "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?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

These threads are like some amazing self-replicated mimetic joke or something. They're actually starting to be fun to read for me (when not taken seriously).

Philosophers of science giving advice about inconsistent theories (IN CAPITALS):

netfiles.uiuc.edu/brhoads/www/book/chapt1.pdf
"Internal inconsistency is a defect in a theory that gives grounds for seeking a better theory. Proving that a theory is inconsistent has the same import as showing that it has false empirical consequences: inconsistency guarantees that some part of the theory is false. Unfortunately, this does not require that we throw out the entire theory. Inconsistency only requires some modification in the theory, and logic provides little guidance as to what modification is appropriate. A classic example will illustrate the point. Special relativity has two key postulates: the laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference moving with constant relative velocities, and the velocity of light is the same in all reference frames. Other physicists besides Einstein contemplated the reconstruction of physics on the basis of these two postulates, but abandoned the idea because it seems easy to show that these postulates are mutually inconsistent. Einstein notes the problem early in his first relativity paper, 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', and announces that he will show that these are only apparently inconsistent. He then argues that the inconsistency actually requires a third proposition: whether two events (at a distance from each other) are simultaneous is an objective fact. Before Einstein's analysis, physicists had not considered this claim to be a hypothesis subject to reconsideration, and this is the hypothesis that Einstein rejects in order to eliminate the inconsistency. There is an additional twist that we should note. An inconsistent theory may be extremely useful if it is deployed with sufficient care. The classic example here is Bohr's theory of the atom which postulates that certain electron orbits are stable, but does so in the context of classical electrodynamics which implies that no orbits are stable. The theory's inconsistency was recognized as a defect and this defect was eliminated by the new quantum theory of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. But inconsistency is not a defect that immediately blocks legitimate application of the theory. In general, inconsistency is a formal defect in a theory, but THE DISCOVERY THAT A THEORY IS INCONSISTENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC RESPONSE FROM THEORISTS."

Theorists do follow the advice of course. Yet there are embarrassing views:

labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/451...at-pillar-of-physics
"Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its supporters have drawn on contradictory principles in a way that greatly expanded their apparent ability to explain the universe. Most crazes die out when it becomes obvious that they were overblown. The amazing thing about Einstein's theory of relativity is that it has kept going. It is built on contradictions, but these very contradictions means that almost anything 'proves' that it is right. It is a bit like a theory where you say 1 + 1 = 2, but also that 1+ 1 = 3."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

From John Michell's simple truth to Albert Einstein's schizophrenic inconsistency:

www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon in 1796, using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of light waves. (...) Once it became accepted that light is an electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. The only way around this conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's conclusion in 1911. He considered an accelerating box, and noted that according to the special theory of relativity, the clock rate at the bottom of the box was slower than the clock rate at the top. (...) The changing rates of clocks allowed Einstein to conclude that light waves change frequency as they move..."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

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]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/histo.../1911_35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

A: 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

B: 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4 is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "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?"

Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German

You probably got that part right

encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/9...tional-redshift.html
"A frequency shifting of light to lower frequencies for sources emitting light in a relatively strong gravitational field; also called the Einstein shift. It means that light travelling away from a massive body appears at a lower frequency (redshifted) than expected. The redshift of light travelling away from Earth was first measured in 1961 by Robert Pound and Glen Rebka using the Mössbauer effect. Interpreted as the faster running of clocks in regions of weaker gravitational fields..."

Here Einsteiniana's teachers exercise themselves in crimestop, that is, they stop short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of the following dangerous thought:

DANGEROUS THOUGHT: "Interpreting the gravitational redshift as "the faster running of clocks in regions of weaker gravitational fields" is compatible with the assumption that the speed of light is CONSTANT in a gravitational field. Yet Divine Albert has claimed all along that the speed of light VARIES with the gravitational potential V. Initially Divine Albert believed that the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct, then continued to believe so (after all, this is the only equation compatible with the experimentally confirmed frequency shift) but, just in case, replaced c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2)."

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
From 1907 on Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant (nowadays most Einsteinians claim the opposite - nobody sees the contradiction and nobody cares). In 1911 Einstein is explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

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]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....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."

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."

In 1915 Einstein manages to get rid of Newton's emission theory of light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. 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. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/histo.../1911_35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light with c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5: c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally (e.g. by Pound and Rebka); c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is inconsistent with the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR. Einstein's relativity should have been falsified by the Pound-Rebka experiment and yet this experiment is still regarded as a glorious confirmation of Einstein's theory. An analogy will make things clearer. Consider a theory where 2+2=4 has been replaced by 2+2=5. The founders of the new theory obtain:

A: 3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15

B: 3(2+2) = 6 + 6 = 12

Note that the TRUE conclusion 3(2+2)=12 belongs to the theory involving the false equation 2+2=5. That is, the true equation 2+2=4 is partially retained in the new theory. So if an experiment somehow tests this particular conclusion, the theory (rather, the inconsistency) would prove deceptively correct.

www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "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?"