THE STATEMENT THAT ANNIHILATES EINSTEINIANA

The fatal statement is "THE MOTION OF AN OBSERVER DOES NOT ALTER THE
WAVELENGTH":

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."

Einsteinians desperately exercise themselves in crimestop in order to
discover the mechanism by which the motion of the observer does alter
the wavelength but no success so far:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

L'énoncé fatal (en Belgique): "SOURCE IMMOBILE - OBSERVATEUR EN
MOUVEMENT: LA DISTANCE ENTRE LES CRÊTES, LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE LAMBDA NE
CHANGE PAS":

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond? Thibault Damour? Etienne Klein? Jean
Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Jean-Michel Alimi? Françoise Balibar?
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji? Michel Paty? Jean-Pierre Luminet? Marc
Lachièze-Rey? En France la longueur d'onde change toujours? Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev

http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou
électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la
réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie
au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de
penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un
observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL
EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se
déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus
d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une
augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la
source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de
sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond? Thibault Damour? Etienne Klein? Jean
Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Jean-Michel Alimi? Françoise Balibar?
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji? Michel Paty? Jean-Pierre Luminet? Marc
Lachièze-Rey? Est-ce que LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE?
Non? En France la longueur d'onde n'est jamais constante? Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity? Est-ce que la vitesse
de l'onde (par rapport à l'observateur) varie avec la vitesse de
l'observateur? Non? En France la vitesse de l'onde (par rapport à
l'observateur) ne varie jamais avec la vitesse de l'observateur? Yes
we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev

In order to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, an Einsteinian
exercising himself in crimestop must be able at one moment to draw a
straightforward analogy between an observer moving against sound waves
and an observer moving against light waves - both pass wavecrests more
frequently than a resting observer - but then to come to the idiotic
conclusion that, while the motion of the observer does not alter the
wavelength of sound waves, it does alter the wavelength of light waves
so that the speed of the light relative to the observer can gloriously
remain unchanged. The task is extremely difficult and beyond the
intellectual grasp of almost all Einsteinians:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to
solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:

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)."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Wo.../dp/0750305606
Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines, Jim Al-Khalili
pp. 49-50: "...consider a more familiar phenomenon called the Doppler
shift which, as you probably know, is the change in pitch you hear
when, say, a fast ambulance goes past you. The reason for this effect
is the change in frequency of the sound waves which reach you from the
ambulance when it is in two different situations: moving towards you
and moving away from you. When it approaches, the waves of sound get
squashed up, giving rise to a higher frequency (high pitch) but when
it is receding the waves are stretched out to give a lower frequency
(low pitch). The same thing happens to light. When an object is moving
away from us - say a distant galaxy - the waves of light that reach us
from it get stretched and the frequency of the light goes down.
Instead of the frequency of the light we more often talk about its
wavelength. You probably remember something about wavelengths from
your school physics. You know, ripple tanks, long springs that
stretched across the class. What fun! Anyway, the wavelength is the
distance between two consecutive wave crests. So a drop in frequency
of light is really due to the stretching of the wavelengths."

Jim Al-Khalili,

As the observer starts moving towards the SOUND source, the wavelength
of the sound waves remains unchanged - the increase in frequency that
the observer registers is due to an increase in the speed of the sound
waves relative to him. You say above: "The same thing happens to
light." Does this mean that, as the observer starts moving towards the
LIGHT source, the wavelength of the light waves remains unchanged -
the increase in frequency that the observer registers is due to an
increase in the speed of the light waves relative to him?

Pentcho Valev

Zombie education in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (Brian Cox
seems to be regarded as the ideal product of zombie education):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2R2d6AVPM
"What is redshift? And what is this Doppler effect? What does this
tell us about the universe? Quite a lot actually. Enter the realms of
Astrophysics as we look at the evidence for an expanding universe and
learn how it all began! Future Astronomers start here! In a few years,
you could be the next Brian Cox!"

Einsteinians,

This is not funny. The motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength and yet the observer measures a frequency shift as he
changes his speed. Why? If you were able to explain the problem to
children, there would be no next Brian Cox.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Wo.../dp/0750305606
Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines, Jim Al-Khalili
pp. 49-50: "...consider a more familiar phenomenon called the Doppler
shift which, as you probably know, is the change in pitch you hear
when, say, a fast ambulance goes past you. The reason for this effect
is the change in frequency of the sound waves which reach you from the
ambulance when it is in two different situations: moving towards you
and moving away from you. When it approaches, the waves of sound get
squashed up, giving rise to a higher frequency (high pitch) but when
it is receding the waves are stretched out to give a lower frequency
(low pitch). The same thing happens to light. When an object is moving
away from us - say a distant galaxy - the waves of light that reach us
from it get stretched and the frequency of the light goes down.
Instead of the frequency of the light we more often talk about its
wavelength. You probably remember something about wavelengths from
your school physics. You know, ripple tanks, long springs that
stretched across the class. What fun! Anyway, the wavelength is the
distance between two consecutive wave crests. So a drop in frequency
of light is really due to the stretching of the wavelengths."

Jim Al-Khalili,

As the observer starts moving towards the SOUND source, the wavelength
of the sound waves remains unchanged - the increase in frequency that
the observer registers is due to an increase in the speed of the sound
waves relative to him. You say above: "The same thing happens to
light." Does this mean that, as the observer starts moving towards the
LIGHT source, the wavelength of the light waves remains unchanged -
the increase in frequency that the observer registers is due to an
increase in the speed of the light waves relative to him?

Pentcho Valev

Moving observer measures VARIABLE speed of light:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the
light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving
at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the
reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't
change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift,
and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the
frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you,
down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are
negligible here."

By taking into account the formula:

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

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
shifts from c to c+v.

Pentcho Valev

Moving observer paradoxes in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now
suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the
source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed
point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f�Œ=(c + v)/
(lambda). (...) Relativistic Doppler Effect. These results depend on
the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the
relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as
sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium
may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general)
there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity.
(...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving,
then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals
as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so
they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a gamma
factor."

Normal physicists clearly see that the motion of the observer CANNOT
alter the wavelength of any wave so the only reasonable conclusion is
that the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) varies
with the speed of the observer (c'=c+v). Accordingly, for the sake of
salary, normal physicists are forced to add some idiotic camouflage -
the more idiotic, the better.

Paradoxically, deranged Einsteinians do not resort to idiotic
camouflage. Silly Einsteinians simply avoid the issue (crimestop)
while "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" convincingly declare
that the motion of the observer does alter the wavelength and that's
it:

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)."

Pentcho Valev

The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

Since "wavelength does not change", then the speed of the light wave
(relative to the observer) does, in accordance with the formula:

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

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 19 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:

It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
"changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.

What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
wave.

Light is not sound (DUH!).

Tom Roberts

If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:

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)."

But let us ignore this for the moment and concentrate on the following
wisdom of yours:

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
(...) What does change with the observer's velocity is the
RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and
the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to
MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Then, Honest Roberts, you should explain the case in which "NOTHING
that is intrinsic to the light wave changes", on the one hand, and the
observer's velocity does not change either, on the other:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen,
visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. 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. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted."

Does the wavelength AS MEASURED BY THE OBSERVER vary with the velocity
of the source and if yes why, Honest Roberts?

Pentcho Valev