WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT BE CONSTANT

The assumption that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source was false but easy to believe in 1905 insofar as this was the central tenet of the ether theory. Combined with the principle of relativity, however, this assumption entails the conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well - an absurdity no sane scientist would ever accept. Einstein knew the conclusion was nonsense and desperately wrestled with his conscience for a while but in the end found it profitable to introduce the nonsense:

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/videos...le-principle-2
Richard Epp: "For an observer at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the source" is natural and easy to believe. (...) "For a source at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the observer," which Einstein did not assume, because it is very hard to understand how it could be true."

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."

The conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer is so idiotic that even today scientists reject it, one way or another, and inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity. Two examples:

In explaining the relativistic Doppler effect for light (moving observer), Brian Greene derives the formula

Fobs = γ(c-v)/λ

where Fobs is the frequency measured by the moving observer, γ is the Lorentz factor, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary source, v is the speed at which the observer moves away from the source, λ is the wavelength:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBuLTzj3CWA
"The Relativistic Doppler Effect - Video"

It is easy to see that the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is

c' = λ(Fobs) = γ(c-v),

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. (...) Relativistic Doppler Effect: These results depend on the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general) there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity. (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a gamma factor: f'=γ(1+v/c)f..."

Here the observer moves TOWARDS the light source but the rest is as in Brian Greene's analysis. The frequency measured by the moving observer is

f' = γ(c+v)/λ

and the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is

c' = λf' = γ(c+v),

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The argument used by Brian Greene and Roger Barlow refutes Einstein's relativity because it does not involve the insane assumption that the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming waves - only this assumption can save Einstein's theory. All sane scientists know that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming waves. That is, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the waves relative to the observer)/(wavelength)

the measured shift in frequency can only be caused by a shift in the speed of the waves relative to the observer, which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course. Examples of sanity:

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://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"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)"

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://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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"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."

http://www.md.ucl.ac.be/didac/physiq.../doppler..html
"Effet Doppler: Lorsque l'observateur ou la source de l'onde se déplacent, la fréquence perçue est modifiée. (...) 1.observateur mobile (v), source fixe == modification de la célérité perçue: c' = c ± v == f' = c'/λ."

http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-...fetDoppler.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 Ã* l'observateur change ! Lobservateur se rapproche de la source: f' = V'/λ = f(1+Vo/V). (...) L'effet Doppler peut se produire pour toutes les sortes d'ondes."

It takes insanity to believe that the motion of the observer does change the wavelength of the incoming waves. Examples of insanity:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique...8doppler_p.gif

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
"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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html
"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)."

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...plershift.html
"...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)."

Pentcho Valev

The assumption that the motion of the light source changes the wavelength of the emitted light (or the distance between subsequent light pulses):

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif

is false but sounds reasonable, insofar as that is the case for all other waves (other than light waves). In contrast, the assumption that the motion of the observer/receiver changes the wavelength of the incoming light (or the distance between subsequent light pulses) is idiotic so no sane scientist would advance it:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The problem is that the idiotic assumption, as I have already said in the previous posting, is the only one that can save Einstein's relativity. Many Einsteinians reject it and so inadvertently disprove Einstein's relativity:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

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."

We have:

(frequency) = (speed of light relative to the receiver)/(distance between subsequent pulses)

Since

(distance between subsequent pulses)

is not affected, the increase in frequency means that there is an increase in

(speed of the light relative to the receiver)

in violation of Einstein's relativity. x

Pentcho Valev

Doppler frequency shift (moving observer):

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

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

Let the stationary observer measure the frequency to be f, the speed of the light c, and the wavelength λ:

f = c/λ

As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency becomes f'=(c+v)/λ, the speed of the light relative to the observer c', and the wavelength λ':

f' = (c+v)/λ = c'/λ'

Note that the equation f'=(c+v)/λ=c'/λ', which is experimentally confirmed and acceptable to both relativists and antirelativists, has only two posssible solutions for c' and λ':

(A) c' = c+v ; λ' = λ (fatal for Einstein's relativity)

(B) c' = c ; λ' = cλ/(c+v)

(A) is reasonable - it is valid for all types of wave:

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." x

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." x

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." x

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ." x

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." x

(B) is obviously absurd - it implies that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming wave, as shown in the following silly pictu

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique...8doppler_p.gif

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

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

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif (moving source)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the shortening is the same for all observers, including one attached to the wave source. That is, all observers measure the wavelength to be L when the source is stationary, and then all of them measure the wavelength to be L' (LL') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case. An observer attached to the light source measures the wavelength to be L when both the source and the observer are stationary, and then he measures the wavelength to be L again when both the source and the observer are moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.

Conclusion: The moving light source does not emit shorter wavelength - rather, it emits faster light. If the source starts moving towards the observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the stationary observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ, where λ is the wavelength and f is the frequency measured when the source is stationary.

Pentcho Valev