Doppler Effect Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Physics wrongly teaches that the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe (the emitter) would know how fast she is moving:

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm

Since the wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png

Clever Einsteinians have always known that the speed of light is VARIABLE, as per Newton. In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Pentcho Valev

"Redshift [...] The nice thing about relativity is that you can pick whatever inertial reference frame you want. So let's work in the rest frame of the source, and call v the velocity of the observer. Since the source is at rest, the wave crests are spaced λ = c/f apart. If the moving observer is heading away from the source, she passes the crests at a rate fmove = (c-v)/λ, as in Eq. (5). However, since the observer is moving very fast there is also a time dilation effect. Time is slower for her, so she really sees successive crests at the lower frequency f' = fmove/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)." http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~sc...21-Doppler.pdf

The speed of the light relative to the moving observer is VARIABLE, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

c' = λfmove = c - v

Taking into account the time dilation effect does not change this conclusion. If v is small, this effect can even be neglected.

The frequency shift measured by the moving observer can only be caused by a speed-of-light shift:

In this animation the observer (receiver) starts moving towards the emitter with speed v:

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

The speed of light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ.

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

"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://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Pentcho Valev

Kip Thorne (4:56): "If you move toward the source [of light], you see the wavelength shortened, but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

"The wavelength shortened" is an absurd fudge factor in the interpretation of the Doppler effect that saves Einstein's relativity. Here the initially stationary receiver (observer) starts moving towards the light source with speed v:

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

If you want the speed of the light pulses relative to the receiver to remain unchanged, you should idiotically postulate that the motion of the receiver shifts the distance between incoming pulses - from d to d'=dc/(c+v)! Equally idiotically, the motion of the receiver must change the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v)!

Needless to say, the motion of the receiver (observer) CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light. The fudge factor is too idiotic, even for the standards of Einstein's schizophrenic world, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly. Here are exceptions (these Einsteinians are particularly deranged and teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength even in the case of sound waves):

http://bretagnemontagne.files.wordpr...2011/02/23.jpg

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...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)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/...plershift.html

John Norton: "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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html

Pentcho Valev

In Doppler effect, the speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is

c' = df' = c+v

where f'=c'/d=(c+v)/d is the frequency measured by the receiver, and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.

Einsteinians do admit that the frequency measured by the receiver is f'=c'/d, but don't admit that the speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is c'=df'. They believe in the formula c'=c, for the following reason:

Ignatius of Loyola: We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus.

Pentcho Valev