DOPPLER HORROR FOR DOPPLER IDIOT PENTCHO

On Apr 22, 7:17*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...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..."

Time did obey Divine Albert's orders - it started to flow differently for the moving observer so that the speed of light the observer measured could gloriously remain constant. Unfortunately Divine Albert forgot to tell the wavelength of the light wave to vary with the speed of the observer and neutralize the frequency shift. The danger is obvious - people may look at the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and come to the conclusion: "The frequency shifts so if the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength, then the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts as well. Divine Albert is wrong, no we don't believe in relativity, relativity, relativity anymore".

Pentcho Valev




Doppler idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=kZaz4UYlJ2s
Edward Witten - String theory 1/5

In this video Ed Witten explains that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. That is correct but Witten would not say, and perhaps does not know, that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER.

Witten further explains that at the end of the 19th century people expected the speed of light to vary with the speed of the light source (as in the throwing-a-ball-on-a-train example Witten gives) but, surprisingly, Michelson and Morley got what Maxwell had predicted - that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light source. This is a blatant lie of course. In that period everybody's expectations were in strict accordance with the predictions of Maxwell's theory - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source but VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER. Yet in 1887 the null result Michelson and Morley obtained unequivocally showed that the speed of light varies with both the speed of the source and the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

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."

Pentcho Valev

The Doppler effect problem can be clearly defined. We have the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave relative to the receiver)/(wavelength)

As the receiver starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c). For water waves, sound waves etc. it is the speed of the wave relative to the receiver that shifts with the frequency - this speed shifts from c to c'=c+v - while the wavelength obviously cannot be affected by the motion of the receiver. Since c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity, Einsteinians implicitly (never explicitly) assume that, only for light waves, it is the wavelength that shifts - from L to L'=L/(1+v/c) - while the speed of the wave relative to the receiver remains constant. So the only problem is: Is the equation:

L' = L/(1+v/c)

correct for light waves, given the fact that it is incorrect for all other (water, sound etc.) waves?

Pentcho Valev