4 ms·

Makes sense. I understand now. Thanks a lot! I guess the aspect of variability of speed of light with respect to the observer (as opposed to the source) may

by alok-g 7y ago

Makes sense. I understand now. Thanks a lot! I guess the aspect of variability of speed of light with respect to the observer (as opposed to the source) may still remain. In other words, if we were to talk about impact of the revolution of the earth instead of the the star, the difference between the two may not be large enough anymore.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 7y ago
Thanks - I am glad I could help. I posted a reply to your question about 20 minutes ago, but I think it was mostly wrong. Meanwhile, here is something about Ritz's theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory (This has a good simulation of the effect at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of... ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory My corrected reply is that what would make this effect measurable (if Ritz's theory were correct) is the catching up of the fast light to the slow light over the long journey to Earth. What matters for that effect is only the range of speeds imparted to the light by the star's motion. We are measuring the timing of observed orbital events, not the speed of the light, and the only significant effect of Earth's orbit on those measurements comes from its position in its orbit, nearer to or further from the binary, which makes at most a 1000 second difference (the time of light to cross our orbit) and is easily taken into account. In other words, I agree with you. The emission theory article notes that this theory is consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, so De Sitter's argument appears to be very significant in establishing the correctness of relativity. By the time of this paper, Ritz had already succumbed to tuberculosis at the age of 31.
- alok-g 7y ago
  Makes sense. Thanks again! :-)

by alok-g 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mannykannot 7y ago

Thanks - I am glad I could help. I posted a reply to your question about 20 minutes ago, but I think it was mostly wrong. Meanwhile, here is something about Ritz's theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory (This has a good simulation of the effect at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of... ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory My corrected reply is that what would make this effect measurable (if Ritz's theory were correct) is the catching up of the fast light to the slow light over the long journey to Earth. What matters for that effect is only the range of speeds imparted to the light by the star's motion. We are measuring the timing of observed orbital events, not the speed of the light, and the only significant effect of Earth's orbit on those measurements comes from its position in its orbit, nearer to or further from the binary, which makes at most a 1000 second difference (the time of light to cross our orbit) and is easily taken into account. In other words, I agree with you. The emission theory article notes that this theory is consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, so De Sitter's argument appears to be very significant in establishing the correctness of relativity. By the time of this paper, Ritz had already succumbed to tuberculosis at the age of 31.

alok-g 7y ago
Makes sense. Thanks again! :-)