On 03/11/19 02:31, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 7:08:53 AM UTC-5, Cmdr Ed Straker wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 12:22:12 AM UTC+10, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>>
>> Hi Ed,
>> Can you clarify this, also referring back to the "Radar Gun vs Wave Theory".
>>
>> So from above, you believe :
>>> the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>
>> You emphasised this in the other thread's discussions, like October 6th :
>> -- start Einstein quote --
>> Einstein : Once more, the example of the moving room with
>> outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light
>> signal is emitted from the centre of the room
>> ….
>> The inside observer: The light signal travelling from
>> the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously,
>> since all the walls are equally distant from the
>> light source and the velocity of light is the same in all
>> directions.
>> -- end Einstein Quote --
>>
>>> In other words, light hits the back wall at c+v and the front wall at c-v.
>> The person in the room doesn't see it because light returning to his
>> eyes will negate the difference.
>>
>>> The guy on the train sees an illusion because the light he turned on
>> hit the front wall at c-v
>>
>> So in summary, as you stated repeatedly though that thread, you believe :
>>
>> *** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed c + v or c - v
>>
>>
>> IN ADDITION,
>> From your page that you linked to above, you also believe (EMPHASIS mine):
>>
>>> light will be observed by a moving observer to arrive at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from THE EMITTER
>>
>> (
http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html )
>>
>> Again, you emphasised this in that other thread on October 10 :
>>
>>> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>>
>> So in summary, you must believe :
>>
>> *** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed exactly c, since the velocity between the wall and the emitter is 0
>
> Okay, I see where you are getting confused. I probably should have written
> that v is the speed of the receiver toward or away from THE POINT OF EMISSION.
>
> When a moving emitter emits light toward a moving observer that is moving
> at the same speed and in the same direction as the emitter, the distance
> between the emitter and receiver does not change. HOWEVER, WHILE the light
> is traveling from the emitter to the receiver, THE RECEIVER IS MOVING AT v
> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So, the light will hit the receiver at
> c+v or c-v just as if the emitter was stationary and only the receiver was
> moving.
>
>>
>>
>> It is worth restating that your statement above - let's repeat it here so there's no mistake :
>>
>>> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>>
>> This is the very definition of "Emission Theory" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory ) - basically the idea that the speed of light measured by an observer is determined by the relative velocity (or, if you prefer, the collective motion of emitter and receiver )
>
> NO. "Emission Theory" is ONLY about the speed of the EMITTER adding to the
> speed of light that is emitted.
>
> Einstein's Second Postulate says, "light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> motion of the EMITTING body."
>
> That means that the speed of the EMITTER will NOT change the speed of
> light that is emitted.
>
> However, a moving observer WILL observe that light to arrive at c+v or
> c-v where v is the speed of the observer. And that is even true when
> the observer is moving at the same speed and in the same direction as
> the emitter. The observer observes the light to arrive at c+v or c-v
> which means the observer observes the light arriving at his speed
> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
>>
>> I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
>>> The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"
>>
>> The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory. The result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the emitter and receiver.
>
> "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
> travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
> however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
> or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
> traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
> encounter is at c+v or c-v.
Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
known experiment.
See:
www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc
You might also like to read why Michelson was also wrong in his claimed refutation of Emission theory
www.scisite.info/michelson.doc
>
> Ed