An observer starts moving toward the light source with speed v:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Frequency at the moving observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ.

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to ?

Wavelength shifts from λ to ?

Remember: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Here is a clue:

"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with
electromagnetic waves)...Moving Observer. 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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

If the answer to the test is

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. Wavelength shifts from λ to λ (doesn't shift).

that is, if the speed of light is variable, not constant, then, as the following quotations imply, modern physics, predicated on Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood, is long dead (exists in a zombie state):

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." http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/ Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one should not judge him too severely for (numerous)
imperfections.

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light...So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/
8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is
embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed...The speed of light is the very
keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured...The constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/
dp/0738205257

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 10:46:56 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

An observer starts moving toward the light source with speed v:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Frequency at the moving observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ.

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to ?

Wavelength shifts from λ to ?

Remember: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Here is a clue:

"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with

electromagnetic waves)...Moving Observer. 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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

If the answer to the test is

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. Wavelength shifts from λ to λ (doesn't shift).

that is, if the speed of light is variable, not constant, then, as the following quotations imply, modern physics, predicated on Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood, is long dead (exists in a zombie state):

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." http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/ Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one should not judge him too severely for (numerous)
imperfections.

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light...So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/

8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is

embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed...The speed of light is the very

keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured...The constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/
dp/0738205257

One of the biggest failures in theoretical physics occurred when
Aragon’s experiment found aberration was unaffected by the medium in the telescope.
Apparently the theorists of the day thought that the angle of refraction/abberation
would change in a water filled telescope. And when Arago didn’t find any change they assumed Bradley’s theory was incorrect.
The problem with Bradley’s theory and many that followed was they
neglected to take into account the fact that in the *earth frame* light
is already travelling at an angle BEFORE it enters the telescope
(a fact which relativity supporters will be unable to disprove).

At which point light travels straight through the telescope if the telescope
is at the correct angle.
And because light travels in a straight line through the telescope
(In the earth frame of reference) then it doesn’t matter if the telescope
Is air filled or water filled. Because as long as the telescope is at
the correct angle for that time of year then the light will travel
in a straight line , parallel to the telescopes length.
And not be refracted to,any different angle by air or water.
Of course relativists, being unable to understand frames of
reference having suffered brain damage from years of studying
Alberts Bible...will not be able to understand this basic fact of
physics as it does not include magic or god like interference
in our universe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The test again:

An observer starts moving toward the light source with speed v:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Frequency at the moving observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ.

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to ?

Wavelength shifts from λ to ?

Remember: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Here is a clue:

"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with
electromagnetic waves)...Moving Observer. 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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

Einsteinians would readily produce this answer:

Speed of light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c (there is no shift: the speed of light is invariable).

The problem is that the above answer entails an obviously preposterous answer for the wavelength:

Wavelength shifts from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v).

That the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v) is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. Accordingly, Einsteinians never teach this deep insight. On the other hand, sane
scientists teach that the wavelength is invariable in this scenario, but the hypnotised scientific community is unable to see that invariable wavelength is fatal for Einstein's relativity (and for modern physics as a whole).

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

"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Statement 1 (Kip Thorne): "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

Statement 2. "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength...but a different frequency...to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, Statement 1 and Statement 2 are perfectly compatible. Professors normally teach Statement 2 - without assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the wavelength remains constant, it would be impossible to reasonably derive
the Doppler frequency shift at the moving observer. Professors should only avoid words suggesting that the speed of light relative to the observer varies - things can become dangerous.

Statement 1 is also taught of course, on more solemn occasions. The speed of light relative to the observer gloriously remains constant, and that's that:

https://youtu.be/-Irlq3TFr8Q?t=81

In this case the variation of the wavelength should not be mentioned - it is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. Kip Thorne's words above are an exception, and I have found only one analogous exception on the Internet:

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.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)