Re: Relativity conundrum

[Brian Whatcott <betwys@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 05:35 PM 4/22/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
> > At 10:17 AM 4/22/2003 +0300, Pentcho, you wrote:
> > >/snip/
> > >In my view, the only reliable way to experimentally falsify one of the
> > >developments
> > >is to measure the speed of light in a frame NOT CONTAINING THE SOURCE OF
> > >LIGHT. This
> > >seems feasible.
> > >
> > >Pentcho Valev
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Is there any reason to suppose that the numerous published experiments
> > measuring the speed of light in a frame not containing the light source
> > have some systematic error?
>
> Sorry, Brian, I don't know them - I am not a physicist. Could you describe
> some simple one? I was only able to imagine a paradigm-experiment: The
> lightning flash reaches the back end of the train, stops a clock there, part
> of the light passes through a hole and goes to the front end where it stops
> another clock. The clocks were initially synchronized. For the moment I am
> not able to imagine an experiment essentially different from this paradigm.
>
> Pentcho


Like you, Pentcho, I am not a physicist; moreover, this list seems to work best
when there is a certain spontaneity to power a thread relatively quickly.
 In my case, I am responding this lunch break in haste, and will follow up
when there are some spare moments.
 Unsurprizingly, I used Google as a first resource, using a string like
"measuring light speed from a source moving wrt the observer"

I picked up several Gamma ray experiments which appeared to be addressing
 this particular point.     Talking without support, I believe the
semiannual stellar
aberration demonstrates a light source which is moving plus/minus Earth
orbital speed,  and I expect I will see some determinations of speed for
this case.
  You will recall that at least one astronomer used a water-filled
telescope for
a related purpose.
 More, later.

Brian Whatcott    Altus OK
But