James,
Thanks for your response. You say, "...If a traveler is moving toward light that is coming toward the traveler, the traveler will receive the light sooner than if the traveler remained at rest. If the traveler is moving away from the approaching light, the traveler will receive the light later."
This response is sufficient in identifying and clarifying the MAIN bone of contention between Galilean/Newtonian relativity and Lorentzian transformation/ Special relativity.
Light travels at a certain velocity, c which value as you have correctly stated 'is determined by the environment it is passing through'. That is light covers a distance, d in that environment in a time, t seconds with the speed value being d/t.
In Galilean relativity, an observer travelling at a velocity, v towards or away from the light can influence light arrival time in the manner
d/(c + v), if moving towards the light, or
d/(c - v), if moving away from the incoming light
leading to your correct conclusion that the former receives the light earlier, i.e. in a shorter time and the latter later, i.e. in a longer time. This effect on velocity of objects or propagating waves is why the need arises in Newtonian Mechanics to introduce the concept of resultant velocity, resultant force, etc. The resultant velocity of light (c±v) is to be differentiated from just the velocity of light, c.
In Special relativity/ Lorentz transformation, the arrival time of a photon that is ALREADY in flight cannot be altered by the motion of the observer during the transit time. The velocity, v of the observer has no influence on arrival time, t whether moving away or towards the incoming light. v = 0 in the equation t = d/(c + v) AND t = d/(c - v). Thus the velocity of light and its resultant are of the same value. This is the meaning of the often stated cliché, "The velocity of light is constant to ALL observers irrespective of their motion". Because of its frequent repetition and use, its fundamental meaning is not often looked at any more. And I guess from your truthful reply, that you have yourself overlooked the fundamental meaning of this statement or cliché. I find this to also be the case even among experts.
('invariance' is another frequently used word in this regard, i.e. arrival times 'cannot be varied' by the observer's motion while light is in transit).
In summary, your reply supports Galilean relativity even if you profess Lorentz transformation. Georgina's position also supports same as does Pentcho's and Eckard's. It therefore seems that many who claim to support Lorentz/Special relativity and oppose Galilean relativity need to critically look at what exactly is the bone of contention between the two so as not to be fighting against what they support and befriending what they are against.
This informed my framing my poser to you in this fashion. Of course, if Lorentz invariance is incorrect there is no need to go further about the mass increase/ decrease with velocity at this stage in my opinion.
Regards,
Akinbo
*I am replying under a new post so that this is not hidden. Thanks.
