DOPPLER EFFECT AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, wavecrests
start hitting him more frequently, that is, relative to the observer,
the frequency and the speed of light increase while the wavelength
remains constant:

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.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "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)."

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/redshift.pdf
"Appliqué à la lumière, cet effet Doppler-Fizeau engendre un décalage
des fréquences émises par une source en mouvement par rapport à un
observateur. Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? Par un exemple simple :
Une personne est debout sur le rivage d'un bord de la mer. Des vagues
lui arrivent sur les pieds toutes les dix secondes. La personne
marche, puis court en direction du large (là où se forment les
vagues). Elle va à la rencontre des vagues, celles-ci l'atteignent
avec une fréquence plus élevée (par exemple toutes les huit secondes,
puis toutes les cinq secondes). La personne fait alors demi-tour et
marche puis court en direction de la plage. Les vagues l'atteignent
avec une fréquence moins élevée, par exemple toutes les douze, puis
quinze secondes. Cette petite démonstration s'applique à une onde
physique, comme un son, ou ici les vagues sur l'océan pour une
meilleure compréhension. Elle peut être extrapolée à une onde
lumineuse, en considérant que le sommet d'une vague est le point
d'amplitude maximale de l'onde lumineuse."

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Usually Einsteinians don't try to contradict this obviously correct
interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) but recently
Tom Roberts did (in sci.physics.relativity):

http://www.msgarchive.net/showthread...EDSHIFT-LUNACY
Tom Roberts: "A child knows that if you angle a ruler relative to the
object you are measuring, you will get a different answer for its
length than if the ruler is aligned properly -- the orientation of the
measuring instrument (relative to the object being measured) affects
the value it measures. When measuring the wavelength of a given light
ray, the orientation in spacetime of your ruler will affect the value
you measure. If you are at rest relative to the source, you will
measure the same value of wavelength as an observer at the source; if
you are moving away from or toward the source, your ruler's
orientation in spacetime will be different from that of an observer at
the source, and you will measure a longer or shorter value of the
wavelength."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...238760facf3fb0
JOHN KENNAUGH: "Perhaps you would like to add to your collection the
views of the grate Tom Roberts.

Me: If I am 1 ly away from a source of light and I change my speed the
observed frequency immediately changes. Accepted theory says that the
speed of the light arriving has not changed and is still c. If the
speed has not changed and the frequency has then there must be a
different wavelength.

Tom: Correct so far.

Me: The wavelength is a function of the speed of separation of the
light at the source 1 ly away.

Tom: This is grotesquely wrong.

Me: It is absolutely right.

Tom: Nonsense. The "speed of separation of the light at the source" is
c, a single value.

Me: Only in the FoR of the source.

Tom: If wavelength were indeed a function of the speed of separation
from the source, then all light would necessarily have a single
wavelength -- it doesn't. Your basic error is saying "the wavelength",
implicitly thinking it is a property of the light; it isn't. It
requires an instrument to measure the wavelength of light, and the
value obtained depends on properties of the instrument (e.g. its
velocity wrt the source of the light).

Me: How can the RELATIVE velocity of the source affect my ruler or the
clock of my frequency counter?

Tom did not respond.
_________________________________________
end of John Kennaugh's text

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

For all other waves, as the observer starts moving towards the wave
source, the frequency and the speed of the waves (relative to the
observer) increase while the wavelength remains constant. Light waves,
however, should behave as John Norton says or else Divine Albert's
Divine Theory would collapse and Norton would have to become expert in
climate science.

Does Norton see this strange lack of analogy between the light wave
and all other waves? He doesn't. In less dangerous situations Norton
practices doublethink but in this particular case ABSOLUTE CRIMESTOP
in the only imperative in Einsteiniana:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians willingly explain how the light source starting to move
towards the fixed observer changes the wavelength:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...f_Relativit y
Quirino Majorana 1918: "...let us consider a luminous source S which
emits waves of length lambda and of frequency n moving towards the
observer fixed at O. If we suppose that the waves are transmitted
through a stationary ether... (...) As regards the frequency we
arrive, therefore, at the same conclusions (...) whether we adopt the
ethereal or the ballistic hypothesis; but for the wave-length we
obtain different values from the two hypotheses..." [The ethereal
hypothesis predicts VARIABLE wavelength, the ballistic hypothesis
CONSTANT wavelength.]

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. 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.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

Einsteinians always forget to add that the mechanism is not
reciprocal, that is, it is incompatible with the principle of
relativity: an observer starting to move towards the light source
CANNOT change the wavelength in the same way. If Majorana had
considered the moving observer case, he would have been forced to
concude that the ballistic (emission) hypothesis is the only one able
to correctly explain the Doppler effect.

Pentcho Valev

Teaching the truth at UCSD:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

Since "wavelength does not change", then the speed of light (relative
to the observer) does, in accordance with the formula:

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

Why does the UCSD professor sacrifice Einstein's special relativity so
easily? In fact he/she does not. Special relativity is inherent in our
civilization and cannot be questioned, let alone abandoned. Of all
professors all over the world not one could think of a reason why the
admission that the wavelength does not change should trigger further
thoughts:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteinians willingly explain how the light source starting to move
towards the fixed observer changes the wavelength:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...f_Relativit y
Quirino Majorana 1918: "...let us consider a luminous source S which
emits waves of length lambda and of frequency n moving towards the
observer fixed at O. If we suppose that the waves are transmitted
through a stationary ether... (...) As regards the frequency we
arrive, therefore, at the same conclusions (...) whether we adopt the
ethereal or the ballistic hypothesis; but for the wave-length we
obtain different values from the two hypotheses..." [The ethereal
hypothesis predicts VARIABLE wavelength, the ballistic hypothesis
CONSTANT wavelength.]

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. 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.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

Einsteinians always forget to add that the mechanism is not
reciprocal, that is, it is incompatible with the principle of
relativity: an observer starting to move towards the light source
CANNOT change the wavelength in the same way. If Majorana had
considered the moving observer case, he would have been forced to
concude that the ballistic (emission) hypothesis is the only one able
to correctly explain the Doppler effect.

Pentcho Valev