"Mich" wrote in message ...
joseph levy wrote in message
...
We now know that the speed of light is not really
constant.

As a layman, my understanding is very shallow.My difficulty with the
invariable speed of light lies in the fact that an observer seeing a distant
light source(star), can immediately change the light's frequency of the
source by changing his/her frame of reference relative to it(star). I fail
to see how this can change the light's frequency without claiming a change
in the light's speed.

Doppler shift is evidence that the speed of light is changing. The
SRians turn around and claim that the speed of light remains constant
because the wave length of the light is red or blue shifted. Go
figu-(

Ken Seto



It is erroneously found to be constant because of
three kinds of systematic measurement distortions
entailed by length contraction, clock retardation,
and arbitrary clock synchronization.
The Lorentz transformations, connect coordinates
altered by these distortions. After correction of these
the real transformations are disclosed, and the exact
value of the speed of light is brought to the fore.
The complete demonstration of these results is
given in the book "From Galileo to Lorentz and
beyond", reviewed and agreed by Pr J.P Vigier
Laboratory of relativist gravitation and cosmology,
University of Paris VI. Available at the publisher's
Apeiron web site http://redshift.vif.com, or at
Amazon, http://www.amazon.com
Your comments are wellcome,
Best regards,
Joseph Levy (Ph.D)

Ken Seto wrote in message
om...
"Mich" wrote in message
...
joseph levy wrote in message
...

Doppler shift is evidence that the speed of light is changing. The
SRians turn around and claim that the speed of light remains constant
because the wave length of the light is red or blue shifted. Go
figu-(

Ken Seto

Thanks for the reply, Ken. I actually would like very much to be able to
understand the SRians points of view, though. The whole idea of time
dilation was what interested me into reading about Relativity. But there are
many obstacles which prevent me from understanding the theory.
What theory do you find more reliable? I, for now, believe the particle
theory answers many of the problems I have.

Andre