Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clj4
You have received several explanations in this thread. Since you advanced the idea that "relativity fails (in this case)" and since everyone else refuted your statement, could you, according to the rules of this forum:
1. explain your position mathematically (with formulas, not with words)
2. defend the ballistic theory that you keep advancing?
3. explain why the ballistic theory that has been proven wrong by so many experiments (see the many links and the other thread you have opened under "Have we been conned by Einstein") proves correct in the case of the Sagnace experiment?
|
1. Why complicate a simple case with maths. Two almost identically moving observers (inertial and sagnac) travelling between two points A and B measure the speed of light as being different. Why?
I doubt either observer will know which is inertial and which is sagnac. But if they carry out a test to measure the speed of light, they will only get one answer, c+v or c-v.
2 & 3. I've never supported the ballistic theory. It's basic knowledge that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source that emits the light - this is supported by the ether medium and SR. But if the source moves towards or away from the light, the source observer measures light's speed as c-v and c+v, respectively.