Re: c = constant

"Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> We are at odds then.  I provisionally accept your claim to have matched
> the data, but I do not want to spend much time on it until you can
> account for the much simpler data of aberration and Fresnel's formula.

Thanks.
Having established that "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body" has no foundation in the empirical data, I see no sound
logical reason to accept Einstein's theory as a model of reality.

As to aberration, I have no cause to challenge anyone's theory or hypothesis
regarding it. It applies to light in a medium, air, and bears no relation to
Einstein's hypothesis above concerning light in empty space. Light in a
medium is source independent and media dependent, light in interstellar
space has no media to pass through and nothing impedes or propels its
propagation, which is consistent with our notion of inertia. It is certainly
not observer dependent, which is an absurdity born only of Einstein's
hypothesis, as is his composition of velocities, time dilation and length
contraction, all of which are founded on an unsupported assumption. Source
dependency and media dependency, where the medium is air, both account for
the Michelson Morley Experiment in a simple manner without recourse to
Einstein's special relativity, and I am satisfied with that explanation.

How you prefer to spend your time is a matter of which I have no right to
comment or advise whatsoever. You are a free individual, and may do as you
wish.
If that leaves us at odds, so be it.
Good seeing, I wish you well,
Androcles