But the speed stays the same and the frequency varies, according to
relativity.
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. 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. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles
with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been
assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was
unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows
one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect
to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other
inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on
Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions
about the nature of time..."
Note that the "moving observer" problem Divine Albert wrestled with
cannot be solved in this way. In accordance with the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
either the frequency and the speed of light vary with the speed of the
observer while the wavelength remains independent of the observer's
movement, AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY OTHER WAVE, or, if the speed of
light is to remain independent of the observer's movement (so that
believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity"), the wavelength will have to
miraculously vary with the speed of the observer, a variation that is
absurd for any other wave. Only the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink in Einsteiniana have the courage to refer to this
miraculous (more precisely, idiotic) variation of the wavelength:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qx7sc1r
"Special relativity is no different to declaring that the apparent
dwindling size of a departing train and the lower pitch of its whistle
are due to a real shrinking of space on the train and slowing of its
clocks. We know from experience that isn't true. The farce must
eventually play out like the cartoon character walking off the edge of
a cliff and not falling until the realization dawns that there is no
support. But how long must we wait? We are swiftly approaching the
centennial of the big bang. The suspense has become tedious and it is
costing us dearly. Some people are getting angry."
In 1954 Einstein predicted the off-the-edge-of-a-cliff-and-not-falling
situation:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Bryan Wallace, the martyr, indicated the ultimate saboteur: Einstein's
1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The Farce of Physics, Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity
theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is
constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics
theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes
an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://bartleby.net/173/14.html
Divine Albert: "Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one
hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other
hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be
considered equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates we
obtained the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x,
y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei
transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the Lorentz
transformation."
An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have written:
Honest Albert: "In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment should have
led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of
relativity holds true, and that on the other hand the velocity of
transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered, in accordance
with Newton's emission theory of light, equal to c+v, where v is the
speed of the emitter relative to the observer. By uniting these two
postulates we can obtain the law of transformation for the rectangular
co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the
processes of nature. In this connection we should have confirmed the
Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, we
established the Lorentz transformation."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com