An Am-I-Brainwashed Test

[Pentcho Valev]

Two texts suggesting that the speed of light is VARIABLE (goodbye relativity, goodbye modern physics):

"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 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

What can the reader do?

1. He/she could see that the texts discuss all waves (light waves included), so the following conclusion is relevant: The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light; accordingly, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer. Finally, the reader could check other sources and come to the astonishing realization that the above conclusion, carefully camouflaged when light is concerned, is present in any derivation of Doppler frequency shift (moving observer).

2. The reader could see the texts and immediately go into crimestop mode:

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

 

[Helio]

The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light; accordingly, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer.

No. Wavelength will shift with relative motions.

If you can measure light to vary in speed for any reason, except medium differences, you will debunk special relativity, and win Nobel.

 

[Classical Motion]

The length of a wavelength is a moving length giving it duration. Which means the length is rated with time.

The true length of the wavelength can not change, but relative motion changes the rate of that length. Not the velocity, just the rate.

If the length has energy, that energy is rated too. And the energy changes with the rated rate.

This rate change only happens with the observer motion.

The emitter motion changes rate too. But not with the emitted length. There is an intermittence of space between emissions. Duty cycle wavefronts. And only the rate of space between the emissions changes with emitter motion. Not the emissions lengths themselves.

Hard to picture.

Two shifts in one.

 

[Astraeus]

Key Weaknesses and Errors:​

1. Conflation of Classical and Relativistic Domains​

• The derivation f′=(V+Vo)/λf' = (V + V_o)/\lambdaf′=(V+Vo)/λ assumes a medium-based wave (like sound), where the observer's motion does change the wave speed relative to themselves.
• Light does not require a medium. In special relativity, the speed of light remains constant (ccc) in all inertial frames, regardless of observer motion.

→ The critical error is applying non-relativistic Doppler equations to light and drawing conclusions that contradict the relativistic Doppler effect, which uses Lorentz transformations:

f′=f1+v/c1−v/cf' = f \sqrt{\frac{1 + v/c}{1 - v/c}}f′=f1−v/c1+v/c
and assumes:

Speed of light=c, in all frames.\text{Speed of light} = c, \text{ in all frames}.Speed of light=c, in all frames.

2. Wavelength Invariance Misapplied​

• The statement “wavelength remains unchanged” is true only in the medium’s rest frame or in idealized conditions for sound.
• For light, in a relativistic context, both wavelength and frequency are transformed for a moving observer. The assumption that only frequency changes while wavelength stays constant does not apply to light.

3. False Dilemma via "Crimestop"​

• The Orwell quote is used as a rhetorical trap: if the reader disagrees, they’re accused of "protective stupidity."
• This is a false dilemma and an example of emotional reasoning, rather than scientific critique.

4. Ignoring Relativistic Foundations​

• The invariance of light speed is not a hidden assumption — it’s a core postulate of special relativity and confirmed by countless experiments (Michelson-Morley, GPS satellite synchronization, particle accelerator results).
• Any new theory that denies light speed invariance must account for and match those observations.

---

What Can a Thoughtful Reader Do?​

• Recognize that classical Doppler discussions for sound do not directly carry over to light.
• Verify which derivation domain is being used — classical or relativistic.
• Seek clarity, not conspiracy: physics has evolved with experimental rigor, and where inconsistencies are found, they are debated and resolved within peer review, not hidden.
• Reject rhetorical manipulation like "crimestop" framing, which discourages critical thinking by pre-emptively shaming skepticism.