DISPROVING EINSTEIN'S CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT

[Pentcho Valev]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
"It is only possible to verify experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a mirror and back again) is frame-independent, because it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and at the detector should be synchronized."

It is easy to disprove the frame-independence of the speed of light in a one-way experiment, by measuring the Doppler frequency shift:

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:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

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]

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c=3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c'=4d/t=(4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

Clearly Einstein's relativity is based on falsehood - the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer. In camouflaged terms, Einstein said the same in 1954:

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."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Doppler frequency shift (moving observer):

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary observer)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)

Let the stationary observer measure the frequency to be f, the speed of the light c, and the wavelength λ:

f = c/λ

As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency becomes f'=(c+v)/λ, the speed of the light relative to the observer c', and the wavelength λ':

f' = (c+v)/λ = c'/λ'

Note that the equation f'=(c+v)/λ=c'/λ', which is experimentally confirmed and acceptable to both relativists and antirelativists, has only two posssible solutions for c' and λ':

(A) c' = c+v ; λ' = λ (fatal for Einstein's relativity)

(B) c' = c ; λ' = cλ/(c+v)

A is reasonable - it is valid for all types of wave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "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://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."

B is obviously absurd - it implies that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming wave, as shown in the following silly picture:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

The following arguments are both valid:

Argument 1

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is no length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be gloriously trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) depends on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Argument 2

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is length contraction (unlimitedly long objects can be gloriously trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) does not depend on the speed of the light source, as predicted by the ether theory and postulated in Einstein's special relativity.

Here is how Einsteinians gloriously trap unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The most unambiguous confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)."

If the Alväger experiment is the most unambiguous test confirming Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source and refuting the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, then all analogous tests are just fraud. Here is Alväger's paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916364910959
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory!

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of the pion should travel at 2c, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is obviously idiotic, and yet the experiment is cited as the most convincing confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. A postulate that needs such kind of support cannot be true.

Pentcho Valev