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