Einsteinium's Lunacy-4

[The World]

Einsteinium's Lunacy-4

Einsteinians accept the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
but fear it at the same time. As the observer starts moving towards
the light source, the frequency he measures increases and since the
speed of the light is to remain constant (here Einsteinians sing
"Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" and go into convulsions), the formula says that the
observer should miraculously procrusteanize the wavelength of the
coming light:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
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)."
http://www.quora.com/How-does-particle-physics-explain-redshift-consi...
Clint Law, M.S. in physics, experimentalist: "Red-shift is not an
alteration of the speed of light, but the frequency of the light.
(...) A thought experiment that may help: Imagine creating some
ripples in a lake, let's say from a dropped rock. You, the observer,
are standing a fixed distance from the source. Some time after the
rock is dropped, the first wave will reach your location. Then the
next few ripples will hit you, and you can measure the frequency of
the wave (the rate of pulses per unit time). Now, imagine that you
are
moving away from the dropped rock. But, you are still exactly the
same
distance away from the rock when the first wave hits (i.e. you must
have started closer to the rock than in the first example). The time
it took for the waves to get to you will be exactly the same (because
the waves propagated at a fixed speed). But, and here's the big deal,
the wave fronts will be spaced farther apart (in time), because you
are moving in the same direction. So, the bottom line is that the
speed of the wave is the same, but the (apparent) frequency is
changed."
Years ago I thought that the obvious inability of the moving observer
to change the wavelength of the coming light would make the demise of
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity imminent. Now I know
something more important: NOBODY CARES in the era of Postcientism.
From time to time Einsteinians forget that the speed of light should
always be constant and tell the truth: As the observer starts moving
towards the light source, the frequency and the speed of light
increase while the wavelength remains constant:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/physics2c/lectu...
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effe...
6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement
La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change
pas.
Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)
http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo.
If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation.
Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo >
Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."
Yet truth and lie ("the lie always one leap ahead of the truth")
safely coexist in the era of Postcientism:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting
both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has
to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes
necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is
needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap
ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev