Proof that the speed of light is
relative and additive
Verifiable, repeatable, indisputable proof that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of
the frame of reference where it is measured.

Don Edward Sprague, Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009

This paper has two parts.  First, I show that the speed of light is relative and additive.  Second, I show how the
issue is addressed in the theory or relativity.

The speed of light has been measured thousands of times and it is consistently shown to be “c”. We also know that
a square has four sides of equal lengths and we can simultaneously measure the speed of light between corners of
a square and we consistent get the same results for both measurements going different directions.     

Now consider that our square is 10 units of length per side and moves 10 units of length in the time it takes for
objects to move between A to B and between A to C.  The corners of the square are labeled:  “A” for the lower left,
“B” for the lower right, and “C” for the upper left.

Initial position of box relative to the ground.









For the first half of the round trip, the platform moved 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects on the
platform move 10 units of length on the surface of the platform from A to B and from A to C

First half of round trip:





















In this case, one object moved 10 units of length in the box as it goes from A to B and it also goes from 1 to 3
relative to the ground.  Location 3 is 20 units of length from 1 relative to the ground.  The distance the object moved
is both 10 and 20 units of length depending upon the frame of reference of the objects and the observer.   The
other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from A to C and it also moves 14.14 units of length relative to the
ground.   

Second half of round trip:





















The platform moves another 10 units of length relative to the ground while objects on the platform move 10 units of
length on the surface of the platform to make their return trip to A.   


In this case the object moving from  B to A moves 10 units of length on the platform but remain at point 3 relative
the ground. It has a ground speed of zero. The other object moved 10 units of length as it goes from C to A on the
platform and it also moves 14.14 units of length relative to the ground.     

The results of this activity show:

When observed from the platform, the objects on the platform moved 10 units of length on each half of the round
trip for a total of 20 units each for their round trips between A to B and between A to C.  

When observed from the ground, one object moved 20 units of length for the first half of the platforms trip then
remained still and didn't move for the second half of the platforms trip.  The other object moved in a triangle from A
to C to A for a total distance of 28.28 units of length. Although both objects moved the same speed and distance
relative to the platform,  their movement relative to the ground has one object that moved 8.29 units of length
through space further than the other in the same time frame. This shows that one object moved further and faster
than the other.  


This setup for our real experiment shows that the speed of objects are relative to the frame of reference where they
are measured as well as where they are observed and calculated making them additive when observed from a point
outside the moving frame of reference.     


Now we apply different albeit correct names to the platform and the moving objects.  Instead of referring to the
platform, we call it the surface of the earth. Instead of referring to objects, we call it light. The earth is spinning on
it's axis and is going around the sun and the sun is moving through the galaxy and universe.  Now consider a point
in space as viewed from the surface of the sun.  Suppose that point in space is our point 1-A as in the above
discussion. Relative to the sun, point 1 in space corresponds to point A on the surface of the earth.  At a later time,
relative to the sun, point 1 in space remains at the same place in space but point A on the surface of the earth has
moved just as point A on the platform moved.

The speed of any object is relative to the frame in which it resides. If a moving object resides on train car or on a
bicycle or on the surface of the earth, the speed of the moving object is relative to the frame in which it resides and
is additive to the speed of the moving frame of reference. A ball thrown from a bicycle, or train or on the surface of
the earth is additive to the speed of the bicycle or train or the surface of the earth.  A sound generated on a bicycle
or inside a train car or on the surface of the earth is relative and additive.  Light is also relative and additive.  So
now we see that the objects in the above experiment can properly be called light pulses that moved different
speeds and different distances in space while riding on the moving platform that we previously properly identified as
the surface of the earth.  

We talk about stationary objects but nothing is stationary. That is; all objects are moving in space  but are also
stationary relative to other moving objects. Every experiment or measurement of the speed of light has been done
relative to the surface of a moving object.  Every measurement has shown the same results regardless of the
location or orientation of the measurement devices on the moving frame of reference. That confirms that the speed
of light is relative and additive to the speed of frame of reference where the measurement was made.  The object in
the platform discussion moved in a triangle between 1 and 3 relative to a remote observation point.  The same
applies to every measurement of the speed of light.  The round trip is always a triangle instead of a straight line.  It
is safe to say that it is impossible for any two measurements of the speed of light to begin at the same point in
space and go the same distance in space. Any point A on the surface of the earth will never occupy the same point 1
in space at any different time.  It is safe to say that at any instant in time point A and point B on earth are moving at
different speeds in different direction in space. Although the distance between points A and B are constant relative
to the surface of the earth or relative to a train car; the distance and speed an object moves in space is additive to
the speed and distance those points moved on the earth. It is safe to say that the distance an object moves
between points A and B on the earth is never the same distance in space at any two different times.  Although the
distance on earth between two points can remain the same, the triangle for any round trip to measure the speed of
light has never been the same and will never be the same.  

Every measurement of the speed of light confirms that the measurement obtains the same results regardless of the
size or shape of the triangle in space where the light traveled.  To repeat this experiment, simply calculate the
speed and direction of movement of the platform being used to measure the speed of light.  Then calculate the
shape of the triangle the light traveled.  From those calculations you can identify the speed of light through space as
viewed from some remote point in space.   You can observe the triangle from the sun or the moon or any planet or
other remote point in space.  Each will give a constant speed of light on earth but a different speed of light
depending the remote observation point as well as the time of day or the location and orientation on earth where
the test is conducted.   


In the above I show that the speed of light is relative and additive to the speed of the frame of reference where it
resides.  I showed that objects move in space over time.  In the following I address the assumption that
simultaneous events aren't simultaneous because time and space are variable.  


Einstein’s dilemma with the relativity of simultaneity

Consider two people at different locations.  One observes simultaneous events as simultaneous and the other
person doesn't.  One person is at the mid point between two simultaneous lightning strikes while the other person
isn't at the mid point. The person who isn't at the mid point shouldn't observe the events as simultaneous. Everyone
should agree that is logical.  Now suppose one of the two people is on an embankment and the other is on a train.
The person on the ground is at the mid point between the lightning strikes and observes them as simultaneous. The
person on the train isn't at the mid point and doesn't observe the simultaneous events as simultaneous. The results
logically remain the same. The person who isn't at the mid point shouldn't observe the events as simultaneous
because that person isn't at the mid point. It doesn't matter if the train is motionless or moving when the person on
the train observes the lightning strikes. Unless that person is at the mid point when the light from the lightning
strikes reaches that person, they won’t observe the lightning strikes as simultaneous.  

Now consider the scenario described in Albert Einstein’s paper  Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920,
chapter IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity. He states that a person who isn't at the mid point between the two
simultaneous lightning strikes won’t observe them as simultaneous which means that time has no meaning.  There
is no basis to eliminate the meaning of time because a person who isn't at the mid point between events doesn't
observe them as simultaneous.  It doesn't matter if the train is motionless or moving.  The person on the train in
Einstein’s paper isn't at the mid point between the simultaneous lightning strikes when they observe the lightning
strikes. Therefore; the person on the train can’t observer them as simultaneous.  

The purpose of chapter IX of Einstein’s paper was specifically to eliminate the meaning of time because of the
problem that Einstein himself described in an earlier chapter where he wrote w=c-v which means that the speed of
light is relative and additive if time does have meaning.  Einstein clearly states that the person on the train will move
from the mid point of the lightning strikes and will proceed toward one strike and away from the other.  As a result,
the moving observer will think the simultaneous events aren't simultaneous. As a result of the false perception of
the person who isn't at the mid point, the simultaneous events don’t seem to be simultaneous.  From that
elimination of a simple fact that the person can’t observe the events as simultaneous,  Einstein claims that time has
no meaning.   

It took over 10 years for Einstein’s theory to be accepted.  For over 100 years, many people have pondered the
issue of simultaneous relativity.  Search the web and you will find papers by many experts in the world of physics.  
One example is Paul Marmet. Ph. D. (Physics).  In his paper: The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light http://www.
newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/index.html,  and his paper: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus classical Mechanics
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/index.html, he provides detail description and formula that address
simultaneous events and problems with the theory of relativity.  He and many others made the same mistake of
arguing the wrong issue.  I even lapsed into the depths of the problem since my original paper where I pointed out
Einstein’s laps in logic. Einstein didn't eliminate the meaning of time by pointing out that a person who isn't at the
mid point between the simultaneous lightning strikes won’t observe them as simultaneous. He simply replaced
reality with illusion. The detail discussion, experiments and formula are nice but not necessary.  It all goes back to
Einstein’s failure to eliminate the meaning of time.  There is nothing in Einstein’s paper or any other paper that
eliminates the meaning of time. Science doesn't or shouldn't accept illusion as reality because it is convenient.    

Einstein goes on to claim that space has no meaning. Although  I addressed Einstein’s mistakes in my essay, let’s
suppose that Einstein was correct.  Suppose that space and time are variable and any method of measuring them
are variable as Einstein says. Suppose the speed of light is constant because it travels some variable distance for
some variable time.  How can you claim to have a constant speed of light my multiplying a variable distance in space
by a variable duration of time.  Fortunately; we can accurately measure the movement of things as they move in
space and time because space and time are constant.  Until someone proves they aren't constant, they remain
constant and the speed of light remains additive as Einstein understood when he wrote w=c-v.  That is: he
understood that the speed of light is additive as long as time has meaning.    

This discussion is reminiscent of wrong dinosaur head being accepted by the scientific community for over 100
years.  Although many people in the scientific community knew of the problem, they didn't want to be the ones who
pushed to correct the mistake. It is past time to correct the problem of the theory of relativity.  Perhaps the problem
has been prolonged because the theory or relativity isn't required study.  It is simply accepted as a basis for
discussion of science and education.  As a result, science and study are based on an illusion instead of reality.  It
could be that until now, nobody has properly addressed the problem and properly explained the illusion Einstein
employed to resolve his dilemma.  This short paper goes to the heart of the issue in a simple concise way.  My essay
goes through all of Einstein’s paper addressing how he understood his problems and how he used illusion to
replace reality.  If you can understand this short paper, you don’t need to read my original essay or any of my other
papers. If you are interested in learning more about the problems in Einstein’s paper, go ahead and read my essay
and the other papers.


Copyright Don E. Sprague 2007, 2008, 2009

All rights reserved.
The Sprague Light Race is a race between lights from separate moving platforms
released by a shutter. The different arrival times shows light is relative and additive
to the origin frame of reference.

Click here to learn how to conduct the Sprague light race.