How to have light move faster than C

[Kimble]

@mythoughts

I have made points that are proven by experiments, such as muon decay rate not being effected by G-force.

That’s because you don’t understand what GR predicts. Note that this page is directly linked to [the one you posted](Experimental Basis of Special Relativity Hypothesis).

@mythoughts

The part that would be seen differently by SR is that if you looked at the speed of light in each direction over a small portion (not the whole loop) SR would insist that the speed of light over that portion would be equal in both directions, where I would argue that if the scheme to measure the speed of light does not suffer from a synchronization scheme that is based on the speed of light (which would obviously cancel any results as the synch scheme would be flawed) then even over a finite portion the speed of light could not be the same in each direction.

I would argue that Einstein synchronization of two clocks is equivalent to:

• taking a third clock
• placing clock 3 next to clock 1
• setting clock 3’s time to clock 1’s time
• moving clock 3 as slowly as possible (in order to avoid relative time dilation) to clock 2
• setting clock 2’s time to clock 3’s time
  (source)

and:

• that makes more sense than synchronizing two clocks and then moving them around
• SR’s definitions are a part of the theory, because they affect its results; you can’t change its definitions and then say the theory is wrong because of changes you made to it (well, obviously, you just did, but hopefully you can see why this is wrong)

@Pasta

Are you presenting this quote because you trust its source? It appears to be somebody just saying stuff on the Internet in a discussion thread. Would it carry equal weight for you if someone on the Internet said “All the math works out and shows that photons are perfectly normal particles without mass”? Here, I’ll say it now: All the math works out and shows that photons are perfectly normal particles without mass. Can someone cite this post with equal weight to your citation, or is there a reason to take yours more seriously?

If you search for pages that say SR is flawed, you will find those pages. If you search for pages that say SR works fine, you will find those pages. Why would you choose to do the first search and trust those results over what you get from the second search? That seems like a very biased way to do a review of the body of knowledge.

When I tried a few days ago to keep the discussion focused on a particular train of thought, I wanted to zero in on where the potential flaws were in your train of thought. Each attempt (mine or others’) ended with you switching to a brand new train of logic or thought experiment whenever things started to get either interesting or complicated. I don’t believe you switch topics this way maliciously. Rather, I believe you subconsciously reboot the discussion this way when things reach a point of cognitive dissonance. When someone says something that seems correct but also incompatible with your conclusion that SR is flawed (or alternatively, when someone says something that is too complex for quick digestion), you have two choices. You can either take a deep breadth and dive deeper into the contradiction or complexity to understand where the disconnect in conclusions comes from. Or, you can assume there must be a problem with the statements they are making. So far, you have only taken the second route. This manifests as your trying to derive your conclusions a completely different way. This approach is frustrating for the other person. Why not suspend disbelief for just a moment – give the other person the benefit of the doubt – and put in the extra effort needed to approach the arguments on their terms. If you just jump to a different argument on a different set of terms (your own), no progress in understanding can happen.

Finally: think to yourself why you switch topics and examples so much. Do you switch at moments when the current discussion reaches a impasse in logic or complexity? If that happens, you cannot ignore the impasse if you are truly seeking truth. The impasses – the clashes of conclusions – mean there is something worth digging into. It does not mean that one side of the clash must be wrong because the other conclusion must be right. It just means that things might be subtly different than they seemed at first, and that’s the wonder of discovery. I ask you: do you think the logic clashes or complexity hangups that prompt you to change topics so frequently could possibly be evidence that things are not what they seem? Could it be that maybe things are just a little bit different than you currently understand them to be? Any chance at all? I’m not asking whether things are different than what you currently understand them to be. I’m just asking if you think that’s a possibility worth exploring at all.

Reposted for truth.

P.S. Your not understanding the math doesn’t make the math go away. E.g., Itself’s demonstration that Lorentz transformations imply the speed of light is constant for all observers in inertial frames still holds. Maybe you can get your scientist friend, who totally really exists, to do the math for you? It’s post 187.