Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...



Androcles wrote:




In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary, x and y
don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are the
arm-lengths).




Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's postulate is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the reference
frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?




Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in Einstein's
theory.



Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.





Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.



Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.


The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source can only
be derived using all of Maxwell's laws. But see my comments about
Ampere's law at the end of my latest post--there, I pointed out that in
Maxwell's time the law would not have had a c in it, only the
permittivity and permeability of free space terms (epsilon_0 and mu_0)
whose values had been found by experiments having nothing to do with
light. Maxwell then showed that taken together, the laws imply that
electromagnetic waves always travel at velocity
1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and it was only *after* it was noticed
that this number was very close to the measured speed of light that
physicist realized light was just a form of electromagnetic wave.

Jesse