www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "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). That increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would happen."

John Norton would have produced a revolutionary text if he had not used the variable wavelength camouflage. Here is the text without the camouflage:

"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 SPEED OF THE LIGHT RELATIVE TO HIM TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). That increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would happen."

Etherists do not use the variable wavelength camouflage and accordingly do produce revolutionary texts from time to time:

redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of the West Indies
"Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at speed v much lower than c towards or away from a stationary source intercepts electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency change arises because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic radiation at a relative speed c ± v that is different from the light speed c. Though special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this light speed variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly contradicts the light speed invariance requirement of special relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

A lot of people would look at the Doppler
speed article and say it was authoritative.
But the inference is all wrong, and it's
trivial to prove it so with real instruments
and simple equations. One model merges into the
other at low speeds. This is obvious, but
only if you actually understand.

At the heart of the problem is the
classic "appeal to authority" as a fallacy.
The job description does not qualify
the "expert" for the topic, any more
than I could trust a PhD. in Bible studies
to do "Doctor-type" brain surgery on me.

People who don't know how to qualify knowledge
can roam the world now and find refections
of their own thought accidents. Who is more
beautiful than Narcissus? Don't ask Narcissus.

www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say, 2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization. Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand such a blow:

www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
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."

But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana:

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spir...living_b_650940.html
"Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...) Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments. "One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric] alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not to the physical world."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Orwell as an expert on Relativity???

And....
Robert Lanza is a Biotechnology executive,
and has a lot of 'interesting' ideas.....
Another "appeal to authority" that looks odd.
Wrong field, appeal-to-authority fallacy.
I like Mario Lanza....he could sing.

Yeah.....now I get it. Finding fellow
Einstein conspiracy types. Great.

I agree with you

________________
Greys Anatomy dvd box set

Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. True and consistent with the particle model of light.

Maxwell's theory: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer but is independent of the speed of the emitter. A false but physically reasonable hypothesis: it is consistent with the wave model of light.

Einstein's special relativity: The speed of light is independent of both the speed of the observer and the speed of the emitter. A physically absurd hypothesis: it is inconsistent with both the particle and wave models of light.

Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). True and consistent with the particle model of light. Consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka.

Einstein's relativity: Between 1907 and 1915, the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, V, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light. From 1915 on, it varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Later writers (Stephen Hawking, Steve Carlip) teach that the speed of light does not vary at all with the gravitational potential. An inconsistency extremely dangerous for the integrity of scientists' minds.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say, 2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization. Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand such a blow:

www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
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."

But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana:

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spir...living_b_650940.html
"Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...) Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments. "One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric] alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not to the physical world."