THE INSANITY CALLED RELATIVITY

Initially both the light source and the observer are stationary. The observer measures the frequency to be f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. Then the source and the observer simultaneously start moving towards each other - the source with (small) speed v1 and the observer with (small) speed v2. The new frequency measured by the observer is:

f' = (c + v1 + v2)/L = c'/L

The above result is acceptable to both relativists and antirelativists but then what is the physical meaning of c'? Any sane person who knows the formula:

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

is fully aware that c' is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer (which is fatal for special relativity of course). It takes either an idiot or an advanced practitioner of doublethink to believe that c' has no physical meaning at all - rather, both the source and the observer change the wavelength a little so that the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer can gloriously remain the same, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw
"That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah!"

Pentcho Valev

Sane people in Albert Einstein Institute:

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: (...) 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."

If "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected", and if "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", can the speed of the light relative to the moving receiver/observer be still c? It is c'=(4/3)c isn't it?

Pentcho Valev

Time for bestselling hype: The consequences of Einstein's 1905 postulates are "dead wrong" and "a logical and metaphysical dead end":

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Cr.../dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Time to return to "normal" science: Both the postulates and their consequences "hold remarkably well", Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

Pentcho Valev

You can never know whether an Einsteinian is extremely stupid or just insane:

https://plus.google.com/117663015413...ts/Usf2YCghaoX
John Baez: "As for whether light travels at the universal speed limit, I guess one sign that it does is that its speed doesn't seem to change when its emitted by a moving source. The Earth moves around the Sun at considerably more than 1.1 meter/second, but presumably they measured the speed of light at different times of year and got the same answer to within the limits of experimental accuracy. Obviously if they'd gotten different answers we'd have heard about it."

Pentcho Valev