BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO SAVES EINSTEIN FROM DOPPLER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Bingo the Einsteiniano: No! The moving observer does not see a wave possessing the same wavelength, and relative to him the waves do not travel at a higher speed v'=v+vO, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
Bingo the Einsteiniano: "The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source. Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html
Bingo the Einsteiniano: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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). Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...plershift.html
Bingo the Einsteiniano: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift). Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno

Pentcho Valev

In order for the speed of light to remain constant, the moving observer (receiver) should somehow change the wavelength of the incoming light - otherwise the frequency shift can only be explained in terms of the shift in the speed of light relative to the observer, which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course. The problem is that the idea that the speed of light remains independent of the speed of the observer, which can only happen if the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming light, is so idiotic that even Einstein had problems with adopting it:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...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? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

Many Einsteinians reject the assumption that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light and so inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity:

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:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

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." [end of quotation]

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c = 3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

Clearly the speed of light (relative to the observer) is NOT independent of the speed of the observer, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

In 1921 Einstein informed the gullible world that the introduction of his 1905 (false) constant-speed-of-light postulate, which had allowed him to disfigure space and time, was "conditioned by observed facts":

http://fr.scribd.com/doc/225419961/A...-of-Relativity
Albert Einstein (1921): "Turning to the theory of relativity itself, I am anxious to draw attention to the fact that this theory is not speculative in origin; it owes its invention entirely to the desire to make physical theory fit observed fact as well as possible. We have here no revolutionary act but the natural continuation of a line that can be traced through centuries. The abandonment of certain notions connected with space, time, and motion hitherto treated as fundamentals must not be regarded as arbitrary, but only as conditioned by observed facts. The law of the constant velocity of light in empty space, which has been confirmed by the development of electro-dynamics and optics..."

Was the introduction of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate "conditioned by observed facts"? Of course not:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-S.../dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

Was the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate a "logical necessity"? Yes. Einstein took the postulate from the ether field theory and used it as a premise in order to deduce miraculous properties of space and time and become famous:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

In 1954 Einstein realized what he had done but it was too late:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Ev.../9780671201562
Albert Einstein (1938): "The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." x

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory according to which the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." x

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-mason...an/snake01.jpg

Pentcho Valev

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
UC San Diego: "Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (....) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

Bingo the Einsteiniano: No! This is for sound, not for light! For light, speed observed = v = c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, and the motion of the observer does change the wavelength so that the observed frequency shift can remain f'=f(1±u/v)!

The fact that the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of the incoming light is always very exciting. Initially Bingos sing quietly but then the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - Bingos tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory.. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

Pentcho Valev