A quantum problem

*sigh*
Okay, so Maxwell proves, through his equations, that light propagates at the same speed, regardless of the velocity of the source of emission. Basically he's saying that light is more like a rocket than a bullet. If a fighter jet shoots a bullet, the muzzle velocity compared to the earth is the velocity of the jet plus the projected velocity of the gun. So, if your gun shoots at the speed of sound and your jet is moving at the speed of sound, the velocity of the bullet as it leaves the gun will be twice the speed of sound.

Missiles on the other hand, are dropped from the jet, then kick in their own velocity system. It's possible that a plane could drop a missile that moves slower and thus move backwards in relation to the jet. Usually, however, missiles move faster than jets so we typically see the missile fall behind a few feet until it's own motor kicks in, then accelerates to it's cruising speed. So, once it hits cruising speed, it doesn't matter whether the missile was launched from a plane a train or tank, the cruise speed is constant.

Now, if we eliminate the necessity for missiles to accelerate to cruising speed, we have the basic idea of what maxwell is saying about light. It's emitted, not projected.

Now, on a strange mathematical exercise, I re-worked Einstein's relativity equations based on the speed of sound. And though I couldn't find documentation on tensors (the UM math department never taught tensors), I could follow the rest. And when I came out the other side, I had proven that E-ms^2 where s=the speed of sound. This gave me reason to suspect the premise. The wiki definition refers to tensors being handy for manipulating vectors bereft of a frame of reference.

This is where I start having problems with relativity: the frame of reference issue.

Einstein says that in any given frame of reference, the speed of light will be measured at the same velocity. In other words, if we're in a 747, above the cloud cover and observe 2 jets fighting, We'll measure the rocket moving at the same speed, regardless if it's shot in the same direction as us, the opposite direction, across the bow, or straight vertical. Well, I think the real issue is that i've never heard of a light ray every getting measured without including the source of emissions in the frame of reference. In other words, there's no aisle seat where you might only see the missile going by thee window, all measurements are don from the window seat, where both jets can be observed too.

And it's this frame of reference thing that bothers me [today]. Basically, I would first like to know how one might measure light without including the source in your measurements. First of all, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal says that this is impossible (by making the first measurement, you alter the light in some way). Second, the frame of reference must also always include the observer, that is, in actuality. All of our observations are from the POV of the earth in some way. We don't have anything fast enough in space to make accurate measurements at any other velocity than Earth's. Third, is the whole time thing. The only shred of proof on it is an atomic clock test that could have been physically altered by the stresses of space travel.

Points to ponder.