THE PLIGHT OF CLEVER EINSTEINIANS

When an initially stationary observer starts moving, with speed v, towards a source of waves, the frequency with which the wavecrests hit him shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where c is the speed of the wavecrests relative to the stationary observer and L is the wavelength (for the sake of simplicity, the relativistic corrections are ignored):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) 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."

The crucial question is: What is the speed of the wavecrests relative to the moving observer? The only reasonable answer is implicit in the quotation above and explicit in the following two quotations: The speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes...erference..pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

The only reasonable answer (c'=c+v) is obviously fatal for special relativity so Einsteinians are forced to teach that, even though the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of LIGHT waves, unlike the speed of ANY OTHER waves, remains unchanged. That is, for all other waves the motion of the observer leads to c'=c+v but for light waves it leads to c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Clever Einsteinians do teach c'=c but internal suffering is unavoidable. According to the formula

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

if the frequency changes and the speed of light remains constant, the wavelength must change as well. But the motion of the observer obviously has nothing to do with the wavelength of the incoming wave - "motion does not change lengths". So the wavelength will have to change subjectively - in the measurements of the observer - while the wave itself remains unaffected:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument."

And the plight of clever Einsteinians does not end here. Even if the subjective variation of the wavelength is somehow interiorized, another haunting question remains: Why do the MEASURING INSTRUMENTS change the wavelength in such a way that the frequency shift measured by the observer (from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L) exactly mimics the frequency shift measured when the MEASURING INSTRUMENTS do not play tricks with the wavelength and the speed of the waves relative to the moving observer is c'=c+v? Is Nature mocking us, clever Einsteinians?

Yet clever Einsteinians suffer only at night. In the morning they are happy again and have an answer to all questions: The wavelength (and everything else) changes the way we want because that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling matter, and this has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) 07:56 : (c+dc)/c = 1+(g/c^2)dh [as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light]"

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Clever Einsteinians know that, if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling matter, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity. This is easy to see and some day some clever student who is not brainwashed.... Another nightmare! Some relief comes from the fact that the existence of such a student is not probable - not-so-clever Einsteinians regularly and in a thundery voice teach that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is constant and that's it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.oapt.ca/newsletter/2004-0...Searchable.pdf
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

In the morning the nightmare is over and clever Einsteinians know: The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field because that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Yet the next night... it returns... the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling matter... the clever student who is not brainwashed.... does he/she exist... help... help... Divine Einstein... where are you... who is going to help me... who's there... in the dark... no... help...

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ph...ixelscared.jpg

There is nothing in the dark of course - clever Einsteinians are just frightened... Except... Perhaps... Yes, there is something in the dark:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...34524874_o.jpg

Pentcho Valev