On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 01:37:14 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The Albert Einstein Institute also disproves Einstein's relativity (unwittingly, of course):
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif
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."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html
The proposition in capitals, combined with the formula
(frequency at receiver) = (speed of light relative to receiver)/(distance between subsequent pulses)
proves variable speed of light and disproves Einstein's relativity.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
What Brian Greene and the Einstein institute are really saying is they pretend light is at constant c in all reference frames. Because they know that
no test exists yet to prove them wrong. And by fiddling the data with
a Lorentz transformation they can pretend their fantasy is true.
In the case of Ives Stillwell which is often falsely assumed by these relativists to prove a classical cannot model the observed experimental results , the experimenters (Ives Stillwell), used the incorrect
formula to calculate what offset a classical model would predict
for their experiment. Deliberately falsifying the results to make a
classical model look like it incorrectly predicts the offset in the experiment. As the following quote from Ives Stillwell shows:
“When we invert these relationships so that they relate to
wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory"
predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of
1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths
(redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a
linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks
should be perfectly evenly spaced”
This is deliberately falsifying the prediction of the classical model.
To correctly calculate a classical c +-v prediction one must
use the following formula:
c+v*f and c-v*f
Then convert the two to wavelength and average out for offset.
If done correctly like this, classical model correctly predicts the
offset observed in the Ives Stillwell experiment.
The explanation for how Ives Stillwell falsified the classical
prediction is simple. They forget that when classical wave of
wavelength x travels faster or slower than c,....it’s *frequency
also increases or decreases* in the observer frame. Not it’s
wavelength.
And the correct formula to calculate this is c+-v* f.
Not 1+-v/c.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
