EINSTEINIANA'S ACHILLES HEEL

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/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)."

Norton badly needs this decrease in wavelength - without it, the increase in frequency can only be caused by an increase in the speed of light (relative to the observer) - an increase fatal for special relativity. However the term "correspondingly" implies that the combination (increased frequency, decreased wavelength) is self-evident, which is by no means the case. Rather, for all other waves this combination is absurd - the self-evident combination is (increased frequency, unchanged wavelength, increased speed of the waves relative to the observer):

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes...erference..pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

The fact that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength is so obvious - clever Einsteinians must have already abandoned special relativity:

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...equency_Im.pdf
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

The Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) can ONLY be deduced by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer (an assumption fatal for special relativity when applied to light waves):

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L - v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "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'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

That is, for light waves, one assumes that the speed of light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, and then one infers that the frequency as measured by the observer shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength.

If Einsteinians want to become honest, they will have to EXPLICITLY deduce the same frequency shift, from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, based on the assumption that the speed of the light waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev