How Einstein Unhinged the Speed of Light (Killed Physics)

Einstein's assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - it is valid for all waves other than light so assuming that light makes no exception is justifiable. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well. Einstein saw the idiocy but didn't stop. If he had, physics would be still alive today:

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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhi...relativity.htm

The independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is not just nonsense - it is an obvious idiocy. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect shows this:

When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"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/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern...ecture-35.html
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

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

The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:

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

The following formula is correct:

f' = c'/d

where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,

c' = c + v.

That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

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://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.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:

Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

Moving receiver: 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 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." [end of quotation]

Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is

f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly,

c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated.

Pentcho Valev

The conclusion

"Einstein killed physics"

can be derived from two premises:

Premise 1: Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Premise 2: Joao Magueijo is correct about the role of the constancy of the speed of light in physics:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels."
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ht-discovered/

Pentcho Valev

When Einstein offered his special relativity in 1905, potential critics found themselves in a difficult situation. They couldn't accept the absurd conclusions (relative time etc.) but had to accept the initial assumptions (postulates) from which the conclusions had been derived. The first postulate, the principle of relativity, was obviously correct. The second postulate, the constancy of the speed of light, had been "borrowed" by Einstein from the universally admired ether theory and accordingly seemed unquestionable. The combination "true postulates, wrong conclusions" is forbidden by logic, so potential critics had no reasonable arguments against the looming malignancy.

If it had not been for the universal allegiance to the ether theory, the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate would have been exposed shortly after 1905. Here is a simple refutation:

"In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstei...eird_logic.htm

Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:

Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.

So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
red shift blue shift

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

In 1954 Einstein became honest and suggested that, by basing his theory on the continuous field concept, he had killed physics:

https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-.../dp/0817641432
John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151: 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 false constancy of the speed of light which was a tenet of the ether field theory:

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."

https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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. 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

Pentcho Valev