Variable Speed of Light (Goodbye Einstein)

The animations clearly show that, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source, the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

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

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

The following interpretations of the Doppler effect teach the same thing: For any waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source, the speed of the waves relative to the observer increases, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

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."

Pentcho Valev

All sane scientists know that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. That is, in the gravitational field of the Earth, the acceleration of falling photons is g. This means that the gravitational time dilation predicted by Einstein's relativity simply does not exist:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann-0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

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..."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein disfigured space and time in order to "keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving":

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. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Yet the speed of light obviously remains variable, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses to be f = c/d:

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

The observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d (Doppler effect):

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

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts from c to c' = c+v.

Answer 2 (possibly saving Einstein's relativity): Because...

There is no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/big_bang.htm
Columbia University: "When an observer is moving away from the transmitter of a wave (light or sound) the wave crests arrive at the observer more slowly than expected."

Correct. Any sane scientist knows that the speed of the wavecrests (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course. It takes insanity (or extreme dishonesty) to claim that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the distance between wavecrests so that their speed relative to the observer can remain unchanged. Examples of insanity:

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