Albert Einstein, Big Brother and Ignatius of Loyola

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." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light axiom is OBVIOUS NONSENSE. But here a paradox arises. If a proposition, e.g. "2+2=5", is obvious nonsense, you are at a loss to find rational arguments to disprove it. Normally, you just repeat, emotionally, even hysterically, phrases of the sort "But this is obvious nonsense, don't you see?". In the end, if for some reason people believe in the nonsense, it remains as solidly established as ever while your reputation plummets. Not easy to remain self-confident in such a situation - you may even start thinking that "they might be right":

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light axiom is just as obviously nonsensical as Big Brother's 2+2=5. See, for instance, Doppler effect triggered by the motion of the observer, as shown in this video:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

Einsteinians clearly see that the frequency and the speed of the light pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, but believe that only the frequency varies - the speed of the pulses gloriously remains constant. Such a behaviour was explained long time ago:

Ignatius of Loyola: "We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus."

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The formula

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

says that the speed of light is constant as per Einstein

if and only if

ANY frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

The consequent, "any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift", is obviously false, even absurd:

Doppler effect - when an observer moves toward a stationary source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html

Accordingly, the antecedent, "the speed of light is constant as per Einstein", is false as well.

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev