THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER

[Pentcho Valev]

When an observer starts moving towards a SOUND source with (small) speed u, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+u)/λ, where c is the speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer and λ is the wavelength.

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f=c/λ to f'=(c+u)/λ?

Answer: Because the speed of the waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+u:

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes/116/slides/Physics116_L08-interference.pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and λ are related by c=λf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/λ."

When an observer starts moving towards a LIGHT source with (small) speed u, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+u)/λ, where c is the speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer and λ is the wavelength.

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f=c/λ to f'=(c+u)/λ?

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+u.

Answer 2 (possibly saving Einstein's relativity): Because...

There is no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://popist.com/s/7528c2e/
"To the researchers' surprise, the light continued to travel at the slightly slower speed even after leaving the confines of the mask. Because the two photons were produced simultaneously from the same light source, they should have crossed the finish line simultaneously; instead, the reshaped photon lagged just a few millionths of a meter behind its partner, evidence that it continued to travel at the slower speed even after passing through the medium of the mask. (...) University of Rochester physicist Robert Boyd, while impressed with the group's ingenuity and technical achievement, calmly took the news in stride. "I'm not surprised the effect exists," he told Science News. "But it's surprising that the effect is so large and robust." His nonchalance might strike non-physicists as strange: Shouldn't this be momentous news poised to revolutionize physics? As always, there are caveats. When it comes to matters of light speed, it's important to read the fine print. In this case, one must be careful not to confuse the speed at which light travels, which is just a feature of light, with its central role in special relativity, which holds that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference."

Sounds like a popular wisdom in Einstein's world: Even if the speed of light is variable, Einstein's relativity gloriously remains unaffected:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/02/are-pop-star-scientists-bad-for-science.html
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The postulate that the speed of light is constant is unnecessary. The only postulate necessary is invariance of the Minkowski metric, you then find that there must be a maximum velocity, which you can THEN identify with the speed of light (if photons are massless)."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

Pentcho Valev