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