grav
kind of...although i refer to it as an "inertial field"....instead of "frame dragging" (which implies a "warping of spacetime" according to einstein).

and also not "source"..(which implies emission).

to clarify:
according to my theory, space (and even matter) would be considered as discrete zones of inertial rest...light velocity is referenced to, and travels through those zones/fields, as if they're fixed coordinate spaces.

but in deference to the "emitter theory", there would be no addition to the velocity of emitted light caused by the relative velocity of an emitter itself.

instead, as light passes from one inertial field to another it takes on a velocity that is referenced to the inertial moment of whichever field (or material) it traverses.

************************************************** **

grav
you must also consider how the light moves in regards to the inertial properties of a discrete coordinate space.



to think of "motion of light relative to the rest moment" in another way?

consider the inertial rest moment of matter on earth....if you were to drive your car at 60kph on a flat road, you would find that there is no advantage in the choice of direction taken...(ie: it costs the same energy to travel at the same speed regardless of the earth's spin).

if you were to run into a brick wall..it wouldn't matter if you were heading north, south, east or west...you would still hit at 60kph.

the same with light...it doesn't matter which direction you emit light...it remains the same frequency.

this is a strong indicator that light motion (in air) is referenced to the inertial rest moment (of the earth) in the same way as matter and sound motion is.

the proof of this is displayed by the m&m interferometer.

when the experiment is executed "correctly" (ie: kept perfectly still)...we get a negative result (for doppler shift)...but if the interferometer is bumped, we get a positive result.


m&m chose to focus solely on the result of the "correctly" executed experiment (ie: the un-bumped interferometer)...and einstein chose to enforce it with his 2nd postulate of sr.

but the bumped interferometer has a different story to tell....one that is incompatible with the result of the correctly executed m&m experiment....and this shows us that that "singularly assumed correct result" should not be enforced at all times...since it does not speak for all conditions of relative motion.


in trying to enforce the singular negative result of the correctly executed m&m experiment, einstein has generated a theory that seeks to speak for accelerated as well as non-accelerated frames (ie: all conditions of motion...since both he and m&m assume a motion of the interferometer through a background coordinate space).

but as we can see with the "bumped interferometer", a real relative motion or acceleration, actually returns a positive result...not the negative result that einstein seeks to enforce.

and from this "positive result" we acquired the "proximity fuse" which enabled effective anti-aircraft ballistics for warships in ww2...and also "doppler radar" which was only declassified around 1950.

neither of which should be feasible according to einstein...since he enforces "the result of the correctly executed m&m experiment"...which promotes an unvarying frequency, regardless of velocity/direction/acceleration (ie: under all conditions of motion).

**********************************************
grav
no.

i define a causal link between light motion and the inertial rest moment of mediums/coordinate spaces...not a relationship to a general "ether".


it wouldn't matter if light were a particle or wave...it is instead "motion relative to the inertial rest moment of light" that returns a positive result...as can be seen when the interferometer is bumped...or a police officer uses a radar gun.