Variable Speed of Light and the End of Einstein

By combining his 1905 postulates Einstein deduced the obvious nonsense that the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the observer (any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers). Einstein "explained" the nonsense in terms of spacetime - an even greater nonsense that killed physics in the end:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "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."

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits...teins-time.htm
Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony."

That the speed of light relative to the observer CANNOT be independent of the speed of the observer is obvious. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, with speed v, he sees the same wavelength (λ'=λ) but a different frequency (f'=(c+v)/λ) and a different speed of light (c'=c+v), in violation of Einstein's relativity:

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://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"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."

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

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate can be refuted logically, through reductio ad absurdum reasoning. For instance, it entails that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

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 reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. The shortening is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λλ') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source starts 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 stationary 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.

Pentcho Valev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...Doppler_effect
"Assume the observer and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v (v is negative if the observer and the source are moving towards each other). Considering the problem in the reference frame of the source, suppose one wavefront arrives at the observer. The next wavefront is then at a distance λ=c/fs away from the observer (where λ is the wavelength, fs is the frequency of the wave the source emitted, and c is the speed of light)."

The observer measures the frequency to be

fo = fs(1 - v/c),

and the speed of the light relative to the observer is, accordingly,

c' = λ.fo = c - v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

It is easy to see that the "relativistic time dilation" introduced in the Wikipedia article does not change the conclusion that the speed of the light relative to the observer is different from the speed of the light relative to the source. Einsteinians will have to admit that the Doppler effect, relativistic or not, refutes Einstein's relativity. No more hamburgers:

http://s8int.com/images9/eistein.jpg

Pentcho Valev