[Kryptid]

SR mentality claims that the photon always moves away from its source by the speed c.

Only in the reference frame of the source. Since light in a vacuum always travels at c in all reference frames, then an outside observer will see the photon moving away from the source at a velocity of c minus the velocity of the source.

8.66 rocketsecond

What is a "rocketsecond"?

[Bobolink]

We may think that: The 33.3 % of  the distance is  traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that  6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c.  Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing  and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.

But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.

I really do not understand your ideas.  I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused. 
I think it would be best for me to tell you how I see this scenario occurs and then you can tell me how you see it.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth. 
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket.  The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth. 
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket.  The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket.  The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c.  The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I really do not understand your ideas.  I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused. 
I think it would be best for me to tell you how I see this scenario occurs and then you can tell me how you see it.
So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth. 
From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket.  The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth. 
From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket.  The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket.  The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c.  The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.
Would your idea have a different answer than this?

The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method). On the other hand you  think still  by using relativity method and I use LCS method.

Let's solve like that:

1- According to SR mentality:  the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x  c)  for 8.66 rocketsecond.

2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like  in elementary or medium school). 
2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space. 
2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time :  t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666  LCS second.

 3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction  (toward -x ) of the photon  (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This  relative speed can be called  as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".

[Bobolink]

The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method).

That part was not confusing at all.  Both frames of reference are equally valid.

1- According to SR mentality:  the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x  c)  for 8.66 rocketsecond.

That is not correct.  From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth.  Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.

2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like  in elementary or medium school). 

This is where your ideas start to become garbled.  In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity.  That is one point of confusion.

2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space. 

How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything?  Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.

2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time :  t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666  LCS second.

It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket.  You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth and the answer would have been 10 LCS second assuming you don't exceed c.

 3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction  (toward -x ) of the photon  (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This  relative speed can be called  as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".

Let's just finish exploring option 2.4 before moving on.

[Bored chemist]

Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every single test of relativity has shown that it gets the right answer.

Does your idea give the same answer as relativity?
If it does then it is redundant.
If it does not then it is wrong.

There is no option where your idea is useful.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

That is not correct.  From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth.  Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.

Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?

Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then  we may continue  to discuss more advanced options.

[Bored chemist]

...rocketsecond ...inertsecond...

It might be better if you stopped making up names for things (without explaining them) and answered my question.

Never mind moving on from 2.4
xersanozgen
Every single test of relativity has shown that it gets the right answer.

Does your idea give the same answer as relativity?
If it does then it is redundant.
If it does not then it is wrong.

There is no option where your idea is useful.

[Bobolink]

Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?

Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then  we may continue  to discuss more advanced options.

I did not mean side track this.  This is supposed to be about your idea not relativity. 
I am ok with 8.66 rocketsecond.
Could you respond to my question and comments now?
Here are the questions again:

2- According to LCS mentality:
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like  in elementary or medium school).
This is where your ideas start to become garbled.  In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity.  That is one point of confusion.

2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything?  Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.

2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time :  t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666  LCS second.
It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
So for your example you picked a 'space frame' that had relative velocity of zero to the rocket.  You could have just as easily picked a space frame that had zero velocity to the earth.

[Halc]

I have only been occasionally peeking at this troll topic, but post 203 seems to be in question.

So the scenario is a rocket is moving relative to earth at .5 c in the direction of earth and it shoots a laser towards earth when it is 10 Ls from earth.

Ambiguous.  10 LS from Earth in which frame?  In Earth frame it says below, but it also says the same figure in the rocket frame, and it cannot be both.

From the earths frame the rocket would be moving at .5c towards earth and the laser would be shot at 10 Ls from earth. The light would take 10 seconds to reach earth and the speed of light would be measured as c by both the earth and the rocket.  The rocket would take 20 seconds to reach earth.

OK, I'm assuming the above bit is the scenario. Earth clock reads '-10' when the light is detected, and it reads '0' when the rocket gets there. These are a couple of frame independent facts.

From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser when the earth was at a distance of 10 Ls from the rocket.

Oopsie

The light would take 6.6666 sec to reach the earth because the earth would have moved 3.333 Ls closer to the rocket.  The speed of light as measured by both the rocket and the earth would be c.  The earth would reach the rocket after 20 seconds.

So at time -10 on Earth clock, it sees the light, and it is 6.666 Ls away from the stationary rocket.  In the remaining 13.3333 seconds, 10 more seconds tick away on the Earth clock, which is a dilation factor (gamma) of 4/3. The actual dilation is 1.1547 at that speed.

Would your idea have a different answer than this?

SR has a different answer. The distance between Earth and the light emission event is length contracted to 8.66 Ls in the rocket frame:

From the rockets frame the earth would be moving at .5 c towards the rocket and the rocket would shoot the laser at time -17.32 when the earth was at a distance of 8.66 Ls from the rocket.

The light would take 5.773 sec to reach Earth because Earth would have moved 2.887 Ls closer to the rocket during that time.  The earth would reach the rocket 11.546 seconds later at rocket time 0 seconds on both clocks.

xersanozgen seems to realize something is amiss (but of course is blind to the errors in his own postings), but doesn't understand relativity enough to actually figure out what's wrong.

[Bobolink]

Yeah I really am screwing this up.  I will drop out of the conversation.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

SR has a different answer. The distance between Earth and the light emission event is length contracted to 8.66 Ls in the rocket frame:

 Yes, the theory of special relativity predicts  this.

Here, we can see a serious flaw/illusion of SR:

SR says that  the tall of an object decreasing because of its relative speed : L' = L (1 - v²/c²)^1/2 .

For  v = 0.5 c  ===>  L' = 0.866 L .

Do you distinguish this irrational inference?

It is necessary that the length of object (rocket's tall) would must be decreased smaller, not the travelling way of the photon.

The train-perron mental experiment hides this nuance. Because our brain may tolerate/rationalize this due to train's long  length. whereas, that is never logic why the photon's next way can be decreased by rocket's relative speed.

After I share the link of my new paper (An experiment for special relativity), I will end my messages on this topic.

[Bored chemist]

After I share the link of my new paper (An experiment for special relativity), I will end my messages on this topic.

Could you answer this first please?

Every single test of relativity has shown that it gets the right answer.

Does your idea give the same answer as relativity?
If it does then it is redundant.
If it does not then it is wrong.

There is no option where your idea is useful.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I want to share a new study about special relativity: One way speed of light

Abstract: The velocity of light is measured by a light-specific method (mirrored double paths, uninterrupted photons, etc.). In this study an experiment is presented with a single photon and one way path. Thus, the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source can be measured and the essence of special relativity theory can be questioned. If this experiment can be realized, Earth’s momentary universal speed can be detected. The measurement direction which gives maximum and minimum values will be interpreted about current expanding speed of universe and expanding direction.

Link: https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224

[Bored chemist]

I want to share a new study about special relativity: One way speed of light

Abstract: The velocity of light is measured by a light-specific method (mirrored double paths, uninterrupted photons, etc.). In this study an experiment is presented with a single photon and one way path. Thus, the increasing speed of the distance between the photon and its source can be measured and the essence of special relativity theory can be questioned. If this experiment can be realized, Earth’s momentary universal speed can be detected. The measurement direction which gives maximum and minimum values will be interpreted about current expanding speed of universe and expanding direction.

Link: https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224

It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.

The speed of light has been measured on single path with atomic clock and the value c never be provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

[Bored chemist]

It's not a measure of the one way speed of light.

The speed of light has been measured on single path with atomic clock and the value c never be provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Did you read the wiki page you cited?
It says
"The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured "
And it's right.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

It says
"The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured "
And it's right.

That is correct: The measurements of one way does not give the value ' c  '. They find different values.

Please read this paper:

https://www.intechopen.com/books/new-approach-of-indoor-and-outdoor-localization-systems/gps-and-the-one-way-speed-of-light

8. Conclusion
Measuring the speed of light has for many years been a major activity in science. Following the introduction of special relativity theory in 1905 in which light speed invariance was postulated, light speed tests assumed even greater significance. Numerous experiments have been conducted over the past century the vast majority of which appear to confirm the postulate. A careful examination by Zhang [3] however revealed that while two-way light speed constancy has been confirmed, one-way light speed constancy has not.

 

[Bored chemist]

Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?

[hamdani yusuf]

This is what the article says.

Using the system, Marmet [18] observed that GPS measurements show that a light signal takes about 28 nanoseconds longer traveling eastward from San Francisco to New York as compared with the signal traveling westward from New York to San Francisco. Kelly [19] also noted that measurements using the GPS reveal that a light signal takes 414.8 nanoseconds longer to circumnavigate the Earth eastward at the equator than a light signal travelling westward around the same path. Marmet and Kelly both concluded that these observed travel time differences in the synchronized clock measurements in each direction occur because light travels at speed c−v
eastward and c+v
westward relative to the surface of the earth. Herev
is the speed of rotation of the Earth’s surface at the particular latitude. This research by Marmet and Kelley was the precursor to a series of papers by this author on the use of GPS technology in the unambiguous demonstration of one-way light speed anisotropy. 

[Halc]

That's the Sagnac effect being demonstrated, using Earth as a giant optical gyroscope measuring absolute rotation.
Light moves at exactly c in both directions in the inertial frame of Earth (which is what GPS uses).

The article says: "Marmet and Kelly both concluded that these observed travel time differences in the synchronized clock measurements in each direction occur because light travels at speed c−v eastward and c+v westward relative to the surface of the earth."

Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.