Doppler Effect Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-...ein-Online.gif

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." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is c = 3d/t, where d is the distance between the pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving receiver is c' = 4d/t c, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

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

Pentcho Valev

Albert Einstein Institute: "We will start with a very simple set-up, which you can see in the following animation. On the right-hand side, drawn in red, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. The pulses themselves are drawn in red, and they all travel at the same speed from right to left. Everytime the sender emits a new pulse, a indicator light flashes once. Likewise, a flashing light indicates when a pulse has reached the receiver:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-...ein-Online.gif

Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-...n-Online-2.gif

The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

So the Albert Einstein Institute assumes that "the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel" (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light axiom), and concludes that "the distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest"..

The conclusion is absurd, and therefore the assumption is false. Variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) distance between successive pulses contradicts the principle of relativity. If the distance varied, by regularly measuring it inside his spaceship, the emitter would know his speed without looking outside.

If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 false, even nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The formula

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

says that the speed of light is constant as per Einstein

if and only if

ANY frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

The consequent is obviously false, even absurd:

Doppler effect - when an observer moves toward a stationary source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"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

Accordingly, the antecedent, "the speed of light is constant as per Einstein", is false as well.

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev