SPEED OF LIGHT : NEWTON RIGHT, EINSTEIN WRONG

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."

The light source measures the distance between subsequent pulses to be d, the speed of the light to be:

c = 3d/t

and the frequency to be f=c/d=3/t, where t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

The moving receiver (observer) measures the distance between subsequent pulses to be d, the speed of the light to be:

c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c

and the frequency to be f'=c'/d=4/t.

Clearly the speed of the light varies with the speed of the receiver (observer) as predicted by Newton's emission theory (special relativity is violated).

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/t) and the corrected c' is (1.05)(4/3)c. Special relativity is even more violated.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...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."

In order to preserve the nonsense, Einstein disfigured space and time:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Updated 2014 by Don Koks. Original by Steve Carlip (1997) and Philip Gibbs 1996: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."

Selected Einsteinians are allowed to attack Einstein's idiocies but only in order to sell their books:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Cr.../dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

The book becomes bestseller and the brave maverick is found to sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" again:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.einstein-online.info/elem...speed_of_light
"Suppose that I measure a particular light signal's speed, and find the usual value of 299,792.458 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second. If I see a fast spaceship chase right after that signal, moving at half the speed of light (c/2), I would expect that an observer on that spaceship would measure the speed of my light signal at merely c - c/2 = c/2, half the value that I measured. Not so, according to special relativity! Simply subtracting speeds would only give the correct answer if the observer on that space-ship measured space and time, distance and duration in the same way that I do. As we have seen on the previous page, that's not the case. (...) Even from the point of view of an observer on the speeding spaceship, my light signal moves with exactly the same speed, c=299,792.458 kilometers per second."

That is, according to special relativity, the observer on the spaceship measures the light signal's speed to be:

c' = c

Newton's emission theory of light says:

c' = c - c/2 = c/2

The frequency the observer on the spaceship measures is:

f' = f - f/2 = f/2,

where f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. (There are certain relativistic corrections which are irrelevant to the argument - if the speed of the spaceship is small, they are perfectly negligible).

Clearly, the frequency shift measured by the spaceship observer is consistent with the Newtonian, not with the Einsteinian, prediction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

That is, if one starts with the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (as predicted by Newton's emission theory), the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

If one initially assumes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, the experiment cannot be explained unless one introduces, ad hoc, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"..

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, scientists would apply Occam's razor and the latter (independence) assumption would not even be taken into consideration. In Divine Albert's world, however, scientists teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed... the independence assumption (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.amazon.com/Curious-Histor...ion/0691118655
The Curious History of Relativity: How Einstein's Theory of Gravity Was Lost and Found Again, Jean Eisenstaedt, pp. 17-19: "If, as Michelson's experiments showed, this theorem of the addition of speeds is not valid, in particular for light, then something is not right with our initial assumptions. (...) The most convincing solution physicists will find will be special relativity. Not much will remain of our initial hypotheses: neither Newton's absolute time nor the definition of speed will survive. But, above all, in this new kinematics a new physical constant will appear, c. It will no longer be possible to add two speeds without the intervention of c. No kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c."

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

http://www.elisabrune.com/pdf/Jumeaux.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "La vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est la même pour tous les observateurs, quel que soit leur état de mouvement - il s'agit d'un principe dont Einstein est parti pour construire sa théorie, et d'un fait observé dans les célèbres expériences de Michelson et Morley."

Pentcho Valev

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...v/reldop2.html
"The Doppler effect is observed with visible light and all other electromagnetic waves. Just as in the case of sound waves, the wavelength in the direction of the source motion is shortened..."

Just as in the case of sound waves? Of course not - Einsteinians are forced into blatantly lying here because they know of no other way to derive the Doppler frequency shift without recourse to the nightmarish variable-speed-of-light assumption.

For sound waves, the variation of the wavelength caused by the motion of the wave source is the same to ALL observers, even one comoving with the source. Accordingly, the speed of the waves is different to differently moving observers.

In the case of light waves, the variation of the wavelength implicitly obeys a moral definition: for a given observer it should be such that the speed of the waves proves constant to this observer, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. For instance, to a comoving observer, the wavelength should not vary at all - otherwise the speed of the waves would shift and Einsteinians would have to sing "Lasciatemi morire":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQsvk1pGUqQ

Pentcho Valev