EINSTEIN ADMITS KILLING PHYSICS

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the constancy of the speed of light as defined by the ether field theory and advancing it as his 1905 second postulate:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

http://www.worldscientific.com/world...s/10.1142/6019
Frank Wilczek, Fantastic Realities, p. 294: "One of the most basic results of special relativity, that the speed of light is a limiting velocity for the propagation of any physical influence, makes the field concept almost inevitable."

Pentcho Valev

The assumption that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source was false but easy to believe in 1905 insofar as this was the central tenet of the ether field theory. Combined with the principle of relativity, however, this assumption entails the conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well - an absurdity no sane scientist would ever accept. Einstein knew the conclusion was idiotic and desperately wrestled with his conscience for a while but in the end found it profitable to introduce the idiocy:

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/videos...le-principle-2
Richard Epp: "For an observer at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the source" is natural and easy to believe. (...) "For a source at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the observer," which Einstein did not assume, because it is very hard to understand how it could be true."

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."

It really takes insanity to watch the following videos and see that the frequency changes for the moving observer but the speed of the light pulses relative to the observer somehow remains unchanged:

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."

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

Einstein wrestling with his conscience:

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/videos...le-principle-2
Richard Epp: "For an observer at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the source" is natural and easy to believe. (...) "For a source at rest, the speed of light is c, independent of the motion of the observer," which Einstein did not assume, because it is very hard to understand how it could be true." x

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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." x

Why was Einstein wrestling so desperately with his conscience? He knew, like any sane scientist, that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming waves. In accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light relative to the observer)/(wavelength)

the measured shift in frequency can only be caused by a shift in the speed of light relative to the observer (which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course):

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

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

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"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'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

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 the last quotation we have:

(frequency) = (speed of light relative to the receiver)/(distance between subsequent pulses)

Since

(distance between subsequent pulses)

is not affected, the increase in frequency means that there is an increase in

(speed of the light relative to the receiver)

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev