From your perspective it has been moved, but to an observer more than 28 light hours away from Earth, it hasn't been moved yet.
Oh, it has been moved. That event -has occurred-. What hadn't happened yet is for the information to have propagated. The observer 28 light hours away would see the signal, know the travel distance and say, "This happened 28 hours ago.".
[doublepost=1527783347,1527778286][/doublepost]So I see you like Apples. Have an Orange.
two observers on either sides of the train (moving at constant velocity), with synchronized clocks, will see the light hit at the same time. the clocks can be as precise as you want, the train can be moving as fast as you want (less than c, of course).
Your statement does not hold true in our universe.
It would require that the signal from a radio beacon on Earth would be detected on every planet simultaneously regardless of their motion or position in the solar system. We know that to be false.
From the point in time where a light impulse is created, it expands ever outward at a constant rate of speed c. It does so from the exact moment and place in space and time where it was created. It does not care if the object creating the light is moving. It does not care if other objects are moving. It simply is.
When light from Alpha Centauri reaches Earth, it shows us where Alpha Centauri was 4.7 Light Years ago and strikes Earth where it is now. Just as Alpha Centauri has moved over the course of those 4.7 LY, so has Earth. We encounter that light at our position 4.7 Light Years after it's creation, not the point that Earth was at 4.7 LY ago when it was generated.
Thus is the propagation of light. The Lorentz equations purpose is to describe this propagation.
In my model above, the points of detection have changed position in the time between the impulse and the times of measurement.
Just as the light from Alpha Centauri arriving now shows where Alpha Centauri was 4.7LY ago, the light from the source in the experimental form shows where the source was a very tiny fraction of a second prior to the time of detection.
The point where light emanates is constant. Everything else is in motion. When we see light from an object, we see the light as was emitted it's light-distance & time away.
Between the time of impulse and the time of detection, the approaching detector itself has moved toward the source point by a very tiny fraction of (insert any distance measure here).
Between the time of impulse and the time of detection, the receding detector itself has moved away from the source point by a very tiny fraction of (insert any distance measure here).
We have atomic clocks that are far more accurate than anything of Einsteins time. I don't know if they are accurate enough.
We know how to synchronize the detectors and effectively tare them to account for the distance between them. The detectors will each consider the other to be 'wrong'.
here's a quote from the big man himself:
Einstein said: said:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Note: "unless we are told the reference-body."
The reference-body in the design above is the point of emanation of light. That IS the reference point. Just as it is in stellar systems, it is in our shoe box or rail car. The flash of a pulsar sweep is indifferent to the light from a supernova or an LED or lantern flame. All light propagates outward at a constant rate in a straight line (unless acted upon) from the point at which the light source existed at the time of emanation (ignoring the obvious gravitational lensing, etc.).
special (and general) relativity is a very well-tested theory. you're suggesting that the foundational principle is broken, but that is not where relativity breaks down. (it's been tested before. check out Michelson--Morley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment). you're asking to go backwards from relativity, not forwards.
the only known place that relativity breaks down is at the singularity in a black hole. (general relativity, to be precise.)
Sigh - You keep bringing up Michelson--Morley. Their experiment in 1887 to see if they could find Aether by using light interferometric techniques. They were NOT testing motion with respect to the emanation point of light. Their experiment has nothing to do with the experimental system laid out above.
In order to use interferometry, the light source has to return to a common point - requiring a return trip which effectively washes out the travel distance of the system. That is why my design above deliberately avoids interferometry by having two opposing points of measure.
In my hypothetical scenario, the lack of return trip for the light is the key. You cannot base the measurement off of a return trip off of a mirror to an also moving measurement point. The average of the out and back trips is the same as in a non-moving construct. By just measuring the out, a difference should be seen. To make that measurement will require a level of measurement accuracy that may still be beyond current technology. It was far beyond Michelson--Morley's available technology.
[doublepost=1527787080][/doublepost]Finding an accurate enough clock...
Accurate to 1 second every hundred million years:
https://gizmodo.com/5834937/the-worlds-most-accurate-clock-ever
Accurate to 1 second every 12 billion years or so, but can only exist for 10 seconds at a time:
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-just-built-the-most-precise-clock-ever-to-he-1819174378
Would need two of them in line of sight to each other, preferably a line of sight in a vacuum. Otherwise the actual distance itself is irrelevant. Better would be two of them physically linked together floating through space for easy reorientation.
