These statements (and others in this thread) win you big points values on the Crackpot Index. Just sayin’
Plus your thought experiment examples tended to document their theories with copious amounts of math.
true enough - c is defined as the constant and is the value of ‘light speed’ in a vacuum - and the point still stands - that while you might slow light down in other mediums - light will never travel faster than light in the same medium.
Is it possible our constant is ‘incorrect’ ? sure - unlikely - but possible - but it still stands that light will never be faster than light (in a vacuum).
Incorrect, I was caught out on that one too!
No, the other constants do not bend, you didn’t mean constants there did you, they are constant you know.
But what you mean is than inconstant time and length change.
Except that it doesn’t, both they can’t explain the speed of light in your example because while they may help light coming from one direction to look right, but they make it even worse the other way.
If you are moving with light so it seems to be moving too slow time dilation could slow your perception of time down making the light seems faster perhaps, fixed, but light coming at you too fast now appears to be moving faster!
But that is still not the real reason.
Because the consistency of the speed of light is an axiom of SR, which means it is an assumption, something assumed to be obviously true that the rest of the theory is based on.
If it is assumed to be true, then it doesn’t need to explain it.
Pretty tricky, I think I should assume I am president of the world and demand a high tax from everyone. Hey, you don’t have to prove a bold and counter intuitive assumption, Einstein said so!
Sadly that is the case, a big big bluff.
I can get many replies, negative replies, but none that achieve explaining what will happen in a consistent manner that does not break Relativity.
And each reply added that is’t that is as good as saying: Yes, Relativity is broken, but that doesn’t mean you don’t suck somehow!
Can you tell me when longish standing theory of physics has been accepted as being wrong (not just incomplete like the Bohr model not showing the electron as a fuzzy indeterminate wave function)?
And history has shown a long history of persecuting scientists in old and modern times that descented even though they were proven right.
The guy who tried to tell people about these invisible creatures that spread disease.
Or in modern times the persecution of the guy who said it is Homocystine not Cholesterol that was the major factor in heart disease, now increasingly considered correct, he and is family almost starved as no one would hire him.
Sure, once it has happened the new model will be embraced, but don’t think scientists want to admit 109 years of science has been embarrassingly on the wrong course until we get there!
Like trying to intervene in the drug use of a meth addict, if they ever clean up for good they may love you for the life saving intervention, but until then avoid them if they are holding anything sharp!
No, that is not confusing, I understand everything you just said.
Though I still argue that it does not work when you get to the finer details, if light has a definite agreed upon location in space to all observers in any moment in time (all observers at that location would detect it simultaneously no matter their state of motion/acceleration) then SR fails by not even attempting to explain how that can happen, even as an axiom it fails by being an absurd one.
But the broad strokes seem fine.
What do you mean “we” Paleface?
Which “guy” did we persecute? Redi, van Leewanhoek, Semmelweis, Pasteur, Lister?
Jury’s still out on the benefit in trying to fight high levels directly, so it’s possibly a nice screening tool but not necessarily a fix. Needs more research. Got a cite on the “guy” who discovered this and how no one would hire him? And I hate to tell you, but it’s really easy to starve in science, because getting grant money even for proven research areas is a bitch and a half, and I say that from experience.
Know what? This just means science works. We [del]“persecute”[/del] criticize all research. We have to test and retest stuff, with multiple researchers and in different labs and such, before we accept it wholeheartedly and jump in with both feet. Insufficient research means you risk stuff like thalidomide being used in pregnant women without sufficient testing, and causing massive birth defects - something that a pharmacologist in the US FDA managed to avoid happening in the US when she insisted further testing was needed before approval.
(Thank goodness you’re just going on and on about the speed of light rather than able to actually do something about implementing the physical change. 
)
Unlikely that it would be published because, sadly, the world has more respect for the status quo than it has a love for the truth. Intellectual dishonesty and zealot are the name of the game. Better to write a letter to the President of Physics.
Yes, But I thought they were all Honorary.
Looking it up, it is only clear he did poorly in school (and was home-schooled) and has Honorary degrees.
It is not clear if he actually attended classes or did tests and the like to gain a degree earned.
Maybe he did though? But I had heard he didn’t.
update: Ok, it seems he did attend a college.
Where did you look it up? The wikipedia article on Einstein details on Einsteins early life and academic career. None of the things you posted here appear to be true.
Ignaz Semmelweis
Google: Dr. McCully, homocysteine and Harvard.
That he did poorly in school is both well known and turned up in my search.
Maybe it is an urban legend but it is a pretty common one.
Here are examples of people trying to answer that question.
Plenty of them say honorary only, and he did poorly in school
And: In 1895 Albert Einstein’s teacher said to his father: “It doesn’t matter what he does, he will never amount to anything.”
Yahoo answers is basically a of random bored people guessing. I’d strongly recommend against using it for anything.
Einstein attended primary and secondary school in Germany. He got a teaching degree and then a PhD in Zurich. He got decent marks in school, and while he failed an entrance exam for the secondary school he wanted to get into, seems to have had a generally successful, if not exactly stellar, pre-relativity academic career.
People say lots of things that aren’t true. Einstein got his doctorate (a real one) from the University of Zurich in 1905.
It would be awesome if there were some sort of natural mode of language amenable to the discussion of physics.
Mathematics?
For those who don’t bother to read the experiment, here is a shortened version.
For brevity, I will explain it essentially in one sentence. and the possible results in a few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections:
Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also sends a signal to both clocks.
If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and one close is slow.
If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our normal clock to get the expected velocity?
But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it first, and later the slightly closer censor would!
And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible.
About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but still obviously wrong conclusion I can find.
If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the light would still exceed C from taking a longer path…
Einstein didn’t do poorly in school. His primary school teachers hated him because he had a bad attitude toward authority, likely because school bored him. He got excellent grades, especially in mathematics.
Why does everyone want to disprove relativity? There are lots of other areas of physics that are on far shakier ground than relativity. If you can find an exception to the speed of light rule, you not only break relativity, but you break all of quantum physics as well. It’s not impossible, but it’s going to take more than a few thought experiments to undo decades of actual, physical experiments.
Rotate them, how, exactly? And where are the clocks? Are the clocks part of the sensors? You say, “Send a signal to both clocks,” but that is the first mention in your set up of clocks at all.
What does the shape of the sensors matter? They could be shaped like rubber duckies. Why “shaped like CD?” Why are they transparent? What does that matter? They could be opaque, and colored green.
You’re putting in unnecessary details…and leaving out necessary ones!
Mathematics as a discussion is at best… difficult. Still, it makes a nice dictionary to a physics-esque game of conversational Scrabble. 
Have light’s mother shame him.