Einstein's Relativity and Post-Truth Science

The frequency increases for the moving observer because the speed of the light pulses relative to him increases, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

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

If the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer remains constant, as per Einstein, then why does the frequency increase? There is only one answer to this question, given by the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light pulses) / (distance between pulses)

Here is the answer: The frequency increases because the distance between the pulses (or the wavelength) decreases in front of the moving observer.

This answer is obviously idiotic, so the only reasonable conclusion is:

The frequency and the speed of the light pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The wavelength (distance between the pulses) is constant.

The above conclusion is obviously correct and physicists often teach it, without mentioning, of course, that Einstein's relativity is violated:

"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

"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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

"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://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Why do physicists fail to discuss such a serious challenge to Einstein's relativity? Fear? In many cases yes, but there is a more general reason. Physics has been post-truth since 1905, and accordingly physicists couldn't care less whether anything, be it Einstein's relativity, is true or not.

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

Pentcho Valev

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Except for a few eccentrics (e.g. Banesh Hoffmann, John Norton) who indulge in hinting at the truth sometimes, high priests in the Einstein cult teach that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment proved the constant speed of light and disproved Newton's variable speed of light. So the physics community is unanimously convinced that this is the truth. Sometimes physicists come across texts (like those above) that suggest a different truth, but immediately forget them. The fundamental post-truth principle "truth doesn't matter" has developed into "truthful thoughts should be suppressed":

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."

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So Stachel and Norton have discovered that almost all Einsteinians ("later writers") are liars and use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that the experiment "is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate". Are Stachel and Norton embarrassed? Not at all. Is the scientific community embarrassed? Not at all. In post-truth science, liars are respected scientists. Truth-tellers are cranks, crackpots, trolls etc.

Pentcho Valev