On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Why not first consider the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation as > either being constant or not regardless of the motion of the reference > frame. To me this is an obvious situation, almost be definition. Start > by making your cases either for or against. I'm at a loss in this instance. I have not taken the time to do the measurements, so I am at the mercy of the experimentalists. My understanding of what they're saying, as conveyed through the popular press and in history books, is that in whatever context the speed of light has been measured, it has been measured to be constant within a small margin of error. Further, I've heard that the theorists will claim that when you assume that light is constant, we're able to do things like calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. I trust that the experimentalists believe what has been claimed on their behalf, and I trust the theorists that the calculations become tractable. In this context I'm willing to assume that the speed of light is constant, and follow this assumption to where it leads, despite the fact that my everyday intuition tells me that light should slow down and speed up in a vacuum if you approach it or recede away from it. My everyday intuition tells me that electricity is made of blue fire, but that's also incorrect. Eric
