MOVING OBSERVER TOPPLES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of 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."

That is, the frequency measured at the receiver, f', is higher than f, the frequency measured at the source. The wavelength measured at the receiver, L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source. Therefore, the speed of light measured at the receiver, c', is higher than c, the speed of light measured at the source:

c' = L'f' Lf = c

See also:

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."

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 !"

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... (....) 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."

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'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
Boston University: "The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving. We'll discuss it as it pertains to sound waves, but the Doppler effect applies to any kind of wave. (...) If the observer is stationary, the frequency received by the observer is the frequency emitted by the source: observed frequency (everything stationary): f=v/(lambda) (v = speed of sound). If the observer moves toward the source at a speed vo, more waves are intercepted per second and the frequency received by the observer goes up. Effectively, the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received; it's basically a relative velocity problem. The observed frequency is given by: observed frequency, moving observer: f'=(v+vo)/(lambda)."

If vo is low enough, the above result is equally valid for light waves (as explained in textbooks, relativistic corrections are negligible): f'=(c+vo)/(lambda). Moreover, the author clearly suggests that the analysis "applies to any kind of wave". Yet the statement "the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received" is obviously fatal for Einstein's special relativity.

Let us assume that I am somewhat exaggerating and the author does not suggest that the analysis applies to light vaves. Still a huge problem remains: the correct formula f'=(c+vo)/(lambda), combined with the correct formula f'=c'/(lambda)', leads to the following reasonable conclusion:

c' = c + vo ; (lambda)' = (lambda)

If Einsteinians wish to save special relativity, they will have to extract an alternative, much more reasonable, conclusion from the correct formulas f'=(c+vo)/(lambda) and f'=c'/(lambda)'.

Pentcho Valev

Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased":

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."

Clever Einsteinians know that nothing can save special relativity from the moving observer. So head in the sand is the only reasonable reaction:

http://skipper810.files.wordpress.co...ria1.png?w=640

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2311eins.html
"Einstein was convinced that if a beam of light passes both the juggler at rest and the juggler in motion, each would measure the same speed for light.. But how could that work? What happens to allow both jugglers to agree on the speed of light? That's when the breakthrough came. Speed is simply a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time, and Einstein realized that if the speed of light never changes, then something else must vary. What if, Einstein asked himself, the speed of light is constant, but the flow of time is not? It was an instantly radical thought. To everyone but Einstein, time was absolute, unchanging, the steady beat of the universe. The idea that the tick of time could waver was exceedingly difficult to accept, even for Einstein."

Procrusteanizing time does not solve the problem. The speed of light is, generally, "a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time", but relative to the moving observer it is the number of wavecrests passing him in a unit of time multiplied by the wavelength, that is, the frequency as measured by the observer multiplied by the wavelength:

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'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Clearly the speed of light as measured by the observer is c'=c+v. If Einsteinians wish to obtain c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, they will have to procrusteanize the wavelength, lambda, by making it a function of the speed of the observer. They would never do this explicitly - it would be too silly.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...ecture5-11.pdf
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling.. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The frequency as measured by the receiver is f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) but what are the measured speed of the light, c', and the measured wavelength, L' (c and L are speed and wavelength as measured by both the transmitter and the freely falling observer)? Newton's emission theory of light says:

c' = c - v = c(1-gh/c^2) ; L' = L

Einsteinians fiercely reject the emission theory's predictions but never give the Einsteinian predictions for c' and L'. Why don't you give them, Einsteinians? c' = ? L' = ?

Pentcho Valev