https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not
because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it
seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications.
By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence
against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the
mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more
reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific
concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source,
like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with
Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source
even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster
than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its
velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and
simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law
for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth.
Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that
only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a
theory to show that it entails even one or another of these
consequences...." (...) Einstein's theory garnered prestigious
supporters such as Planck, Sommerfeld, and Wien, who endorsed and
protected it from the attacks of others, while Ritz's theory acquired
no supporters. Ehrenfest and Tolman called for unambiguous empirical
evidence to test Ritz's emission theory, but neither spent any effort
in extending it, and soon they both epoused Einstein's theory
unreservedly, especially following de Sitter's work. For a few years
immediately following its publication, Ritz's theory may have seemed
to be an odd and complicated curiosity, in comparison to the leading
approaches in electrodynamics. Ritz, the one man who had both the
skill and the motivation to advance it, had died."

Nowadays it is psychologically impossible to test, experimentally, the
statements "the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
source" (c'=c+v) and "the speed of light does not depend on the speed
of the light source" (Einstein's 1905 light postulate, c'=c). The
reason is that in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world experiments are
double-edged - if they confirm c'=c+v, they at the same time
GLORIOUSLY confirm c'=c:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Still people not affected by the schizophrenia could choose between
c'=c+v and c'=c. If, as the observer starts moving towards the light
source and wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the frequency
and the speed of light (relative to the observer) increase while the
wavelength remains constant, then c'=c+v predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light is TRUE and c'=c, Einstein's 1905 light
postulate, FALSE:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/redshift.pdf
"Appliqué à la lumière, cet effet Doppler-Fizeau engendre un décalage
des fréquences émises par une source en mouvement par rapport à un
observateur. Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? Par un exemple simple :
Une personne est debout sur le rivage d'un bord de la mer. Des vagues
lui arrivent sur les pieds toutes les dix secondes. La personne
marche, puis court en direction du large (là où se forment les
vagues). Elle va à la rencontre des vagues, celles-ci l'atteignent
avec une fréquence plus élevée (par exemple toutes les huit secondes,
puis toutes les cinq secondes). La personne fait alors demi-tour et
marche puis court en direction de la plage. Les vagues l'atteignent
avec une fréquence moins élevée, par exemple toutes les douze, puis
quinze secondes. Cette petite démonstration s'applique à une onde
physique, comme un son, ou ici les vagues sur l'océan pour une
meilleure compréhension. Elle peut être extrapolée à une onde
lumineuse, en considérant que le sommet d'une vague est le point
d'amplitude maximale de l'onde lumineuse."

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

If, as the observer starts moving towards the light source and
wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the frequency and the
wavelength change while the speed of light (relative to the observer)
remains constant, then c'=c+v predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light is FALSE and c'=c, Einstein's 1905 light postulate, TRUE:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev