Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory

"There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92.. https://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC&hl=en

The tenet Einstein took from the ether theory,

"The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body",

was incompatible with the principle of relativity but Einstein made it compatible by disfiguring space and time. However this tenet was in a biconditional relation with another tenet of the ether theory,

"The wavelength of the emitted light varies with the speed of the emitting body",

and this second tenet was also adopted by special relativity, despite the fact that it was and still is incompatible with the principle of relativity.

Einstein's original formulation of the constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This independence of the state of motion of the emitting body is only conceivable if the motion of the emitting body is able to change the wavelength of the emitted light. That is, when the emitting body starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength of the emitted light must become shorter (otherwise Einstein's light postulate is false). Accordingly, Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary source)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif (moving source)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"

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."

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. This shortening of the wavelength is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λλ') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source is moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.

Conclusion: Einstein was not justified in taking the first tenet from the ether theory because the second tenet,

"The wavelength of the emitted light varies with the speed of the emitting body",

went with the first and converted special relativity into an inconsistency - the second tenet and the principle of relativity are incompatible.

The light source ("emitting body") moving towards the observer does not emit shorter wavelength. Rather, it emits faster light. If the initially stationary source starts moving towards the stationary observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev