# Professor Bingo the Einsteiniano Teaches Relativity

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
Anonymous
Even when you use an insult you manage to demonstrate how pathetically stupid and childish you are.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
Bingo the Einsteiniano, professor of physics at the University of California, Davis. A synopsis of his teaching: The speed of light is constant by definition. Einstein said the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field - an interpretation which is "perfectly valid and makes good physical sense" - but after Einstein the speed of light in a gravitational field became constant. So constant that "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". On the other hand, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary slow matter":

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physic ... light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev

Amigo
Amigo
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
>>>Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle?

If an airplane travels with velocity - v - relative to earth's surface =====> then the sound speed of a gun - inside the airplane - relative to earth's surface - must depend on the direction - in which that gun is pointing - relative to the velocity vector of the airplane.

roger
roger
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
>>>If an airplane travels with velocity - v - relative to earth's surface =====> then the sound speed of a gun - inside the airplane - relative to earth's surface - must depend on the direction - in which that gun is pointing - relative to the velocity vector of the airplane.

what about if it's a torch instead of a gun, and light instead of sound; does the following work?

If an airplane travels with velocity - v - relative to earth's surface =====> then the LIGHT speed of a TORCH - inside the airplane - relative to earth's surface - must depend on the direction - in which that TORCH is pointing - relative to the velocity vector of the airplane.

Amigo
Amigo
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
>>>what about if it's a torch instead of a gun, and light instead of sound; does the following work?

Yes. the motion of light traveling - in air - inside an airplane ----> should look - relative to Earth's surface - very much -----> like the motion of light traveling - in water - in the Fizeau experiment - relative to the lab =====>>>https://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/?page_id=44

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
The breathtaking logic of Professor Bingo the Einsteiniano:

Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."

This particular idiocy - that Einstein's 1905 second postulate is a consequence of the first - was introduced by Einstein himself so it is sacred and other Bingos teach it as well:

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Phys ... vity3.html

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics." http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/loren ... ecial.html

Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4

Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classe ... c_rel.html

Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers." http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081

Pentcho Valev

roger
roger
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
Amigo>>Yes. the motion of light traveling - in air - inside an airplane ----> should look - relative to Earth's surface - very much -----> like the motion of light traveling - in water - in the Fizeau experiment - relative to the lab

so you are saying lightspeed isn't constant?

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... _logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
Professor Bingo the Einsteiniano (aka Brian Cox) flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c and informs the gullible audience that the light hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c, and that this was a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century theory:

Einstein's Relativity

This independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is too idiotic to be Maxwell's idea - it can only be Einstein's idea:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/ein ... tivity.htm
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

"Nonsense" is euphemism - the correct term is "idiocy". When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10 ... ture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. [...] Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern-ph ... re-35.html
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:

The following formula is correct:

f' = c'/d

where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,

c' = c + v.

That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect unavoidably leads to the same conclusion:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/ ... ppler.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://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.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." [end of quotation]

Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is

f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly,

c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated.

Pentcho Valev

Amigo
Amigo
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03 ... mmetry.pdf

Max Tegmark: "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." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno: