ELEMENTARY ERRORS IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

The observer is initially at rest relative to the light source. Then, after a short acceleration period, he starts moving with speed v towards the source (if v is small, the relativistic corrections are negligible). The speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of special relativity), which causes the frequency the observer measures to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Einsteinians claim that the speed of the wavecrests shifts from c to c'=c+v only for waves other than light - for light waves it does not shift at all (c'=c). But this implies that, as the observer accelerates and then continues with constant speed v towards the light source, he somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - it must shift from L to L'=Lc/(c+v):

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

Some Einsteinians find the above picture too silly but resort to an even sillier argument - the wavelength is not an intrinsic aspect of light waves - accordingly, the observer changes it so that Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and "That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....o/0oN0istr3lgJ
Tom Roberts: "...yes, from experimental measurements we know that the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves. (....) All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given light wave."

Pentcho Valev

The light source and the observer are initially at rest relative to one another. Then either the source or the observer, after a short acceleration period, starts moving with speed v towards the other (if v is small, the relativistic corrections are negligible). Clearly "source starts moving" and "observer starts moving" are not equivalent, due to the acceleration.

Einsteinians almost always explain the Doppler frequency shift in terms of moving source and stationary observer. The reason is simple: the source changing speed seems capable of changing the wavelength (or the distance between subsequent light pulses) and so the frequency shift measured by the observer can be explained without recourse to changing speed of the light:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
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."

That the source changing speed changes the wavelength (or the distance between subsequent light pulses) of light is a false statement but still it is not totally unreasonable, insofar as the effect is commonplace for waves other than light waves. In contrast, only idiots can believe that the OBSERVER changing speed can change the wavelength (or the distance between subsequent light pulses) of the incoming light. Einsteinians are usually liars, not idiots, so sometimes they forget to lie and explicitly admit that "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected":

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

However admitting that "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected" is tantamount to toppling special relativity. Let "the distance between subsequent pulses" be 300000 km. Then the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f = 1 s^(-1) and that measured by the moving receiver is f' = 4/3 s^(-1). Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s

in violation of special relativity.

The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Special relativity remains violated.

Pentcho Valev

In his 1918 paper Einstein made two important statements:

(A) During the inertial phases of the travelling twin's trip, the sedentary twin's clock "runs indeed at a slower pace" than the travelling twin's clock. That is, if no other factor affects the clocks, the travelling twin will return older than his sedentary brother.

(B) The "other factor" that brings about the youthfulness of the travelling twin is the acceleration (or gravitational potential) experienced by him during the short turn-around period. In this period the sedentary twin's clock runs much faster than the travelling twin's clock, and "the calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind" during the inertial phases of the trip:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother] the clock U1 [the sedentary twin's clock], going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2 [the travelling twin's clock]. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around]. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Einstein's error is elementary again - the turn-around acceleration (or gravitational potential) can obviously play no role in determining the age of the twins:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity. For the professional (or the brave), I work out the predictions of relativity. That one twin inhabits two frames is the only thing that matters."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

Pentcho Valev