THE FUNDAMENTAL NONSENSE OF RELATIVITY

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"

This IS nonsense of course. In the following video the observer moves away from the light beam and the speed of the wavecrests relative to him is clearly decreased (the wavelength cannot be changed by the motion of the observer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Ricardo Eusebi is trying to convince the viewer that the demonstrated decreased speed of the wavecrests (relative to the moving observer) is not decreased at all. In a world different from Divine Albert's world Eusebi's mental status would be immediately checked after such a declaration. The same would happen to John Norton (in a world different from Divine Albert's world) after his declaration that the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength so that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/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

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

That is, one can assume that, in a gravitational field, light falls just as do ordinary objects (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light), and deduce that the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). The frequency, as measured by the observer, varies proportionately, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2). In 1960 Pound and Rebka proved, experimentally, the validity of the last equation.

Clearly the experiment has confirmed Newton's emission theory of light but Einsteinians teach that it has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Why do Einsteinians do so? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

The fundamental idiocy of relativity:

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/P...lativity3.html
Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate is that the physical laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames. His second postulate is simply a consequence of applying this principle to the laws of electricity and magnetism. That is, if Maxwell's equations are taken as laws of nature, then they (and all their consequences) must hold in all inertial frames. One of the results of this is Einstein's second postulate: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame of reference. Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ods/index.html
"An immediate consequence of the light postulate is that observers in the inertially moving spaceship will not judge the light signal to have slowed, no matter how fast they are moving past us. That is impossible according to classical Newtonian physics."

They will judge the frequency to have decreased, in accordance with classical Newtonian physics:

f' = f(1-v/c) = (c-v)/L

where v is the speed of the spaceship (relative to us), f=c/L is the original frequency and L is the wavelength. Clearly the light signal is slower in the spaceship (c'=c-v):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

Since the "immediate consequence of the light postulate" is false, the light postulate is false as well. That is, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source.

Pentcho Valev