In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein clearly states that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position".

From Osher Doctorow

The people who tend to believe more in theories than in
the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore >the evidence
against the theories they believe in, should be >considered
pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent >that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, >wealth, or
political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein clearly states that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position".

Einstein has no more doubts: by measuring the frequency shift of the
light that reaches him, an observer in fact measures the deviation from
c=300000km/s undergone by this light.

For many years the only confusion used by Einsteinians (their arguments
are confusions) was based on the unfortunate English translation of
Einstein's book: the translator has found it suitable to write that it
is VELOCITY that "varies with position". Accordingly, Einstein's
zombies used to infer: since velocity varies, speed does not and
therefore anyone who claims speed varies simply does not understand the
difference between velocity and speed. (Sometimes Einstein's zombies do
understand the difference between velocity and speed.)

Finally, Einstein's hypnotists made a crucial discovery: In a zombie
world, the money you can extract from the variable speed of light can
be even more than the money you have already extracted from the
constant speed of light:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLReview1.html
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.35
("Relativity without c")

The situation is perfectly described by one of the victims of the
Einstein's cult, Bryan Wallace:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

Chapter 1, "Sacred Science":
"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest
profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and
well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex
had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive
knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the
same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our
time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the
earliest scientists were the prehistoric shamans, and the argument of
Feyerabend that puts science on a par with religion and prostitution. I
also tend to agree with the argument of Ellis that states that both
science and theology have much in common, and both attempt to model
reality on arguments based on unprovable articles of faith. Using the
logic that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles
like a duck, it must be a duck: I support the argument that since there
is no significant difference between science and religion, science
should be considered a religion! I would also agree with Ellis'
argument of the obvious methodological differences between science and
the other religions. The other dominant religions are static because
their arguments are based on rigid doctrines set forth by their
founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, who have died long ago.
Science on the other hand, is a dynamic religion that was developed by
many men over a long period of time, and it has a flexible doctrine,
the scientific method, that demands that the arguments change to
conform to the evolving observational and experimental evidence.
The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means
knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word
for knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in
his graduate school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and
Deeper. If one considers the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage
that dominates modern physics and astronomy, this appears to be an
accurate description of the degree. Considering the results from
Mahoney's field trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to
three times more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D.
scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to three
times more right to be called scientists then the so-called Ph.D.
scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that observations are
theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an argument beyond a
reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least, the scientist
should do more than pay lip service to the scientific method. The true
scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of
testing theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with
Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a
science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not
follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled
pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in
the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence
against the theories they believe in, should be considered
pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or
political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev