Neither evidence nor argument can exist alone meaningfully. Mitch quoted a complex opinion piece with no evidence. I simply argued with common knowledge evidence that Mitch could understand.
The question of the speed of light is not about argument, but evidence.
Where evidence is lacking on an issue this fundamental we can be patient.
Light is easy (relatively speaking) to characterized, but devilishly hard
Good to withhold judgement sometimes.
On 2/25/17, 6:28 AM, "Science for the People Discussion List on behalf of
Jim West" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>A commonsense argument.
>We know that the speed of sound is a function of the characteristics of
>the media (air, water, metal, wood, etc.).
>We know that the speed of light is a function of the characteristics of
>the media, for instance, an atom cloud it may travel through, as stated
>in the article Mitchel posted. An example is ³slow light².
>Similarly, we should consider (as many have) that the speed of light in a
>vacuum is a function of the characteristics of the vacuum media, i.e.,
>ether. There are many strong arguments and demonstrations for the
>existence of ether, and Einstein himself has not discounted ether. Ether
>is the most obvious and simple argument for the speed of light.
>Philosophically, we can assume that the universe consists of infinite
>levels of smaller particles, each representing sub-universes of unknown
>physics. So for ether to exist, it is just a matter of one of those
>sub-universes possessing the physics of ³ether².
>But why is the speed of light that number... -Mitchel Cohen