Let's try to stick as closely to "the facts" as we can.
Take your advice, and don't say things like "we KNOW the speed of light".
Who made that claim? Was it Einstein 1907?. Did he say it was 'constant'? How so?
What 'Claim'? The 'Speed'. Who? 'Einstein' and anyone who quotes him.
A cyclical measurement.
"A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light.
Therefore what you actually do now, when you “measure” the speed of light (in a vacuum), is actually “measure how accurate your measuring instruments are.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/07/how-do-we-measure-the-speed-of-light/#4c9a616b21d2
ToR a Circular Argument
"This equation is derived by the principle of circular argument and includes the entire cognitive background contained within the two basic terms of the theory of relativity, rest mass and relativistic mass, which has not been realized either by Einstein or any other physicist after him.
The theory of relativity could, indeed, be very simple once the right axiomatic approach is employed – the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law."
Variable SoL (yes Einstein did change his mind I acknowledge that, but he went back)
"The reality that underlies gravitational time dilation
Imagine you repeated your definition of the second and the metre at a lower elevation. Light goes slower when it’s lower. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. Then the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out such that the metre is unchanged. You will still say the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Then you might be tempted to say 299,792,458 m/s at one elevation is the same as 299,792,458 m/s at another, even though the metres are the same and the seconds aren’t. That’s clearly wrong. It’s like saying 100 metres per second is the same as 100 metres per second and a half. But people will insist that 299,792,458 m/s at one elevation really is the same speed as 299,792,458 m/s at another, even though they know the seconds are different. They insist even though they know that optical clock rates vary and there isn’t any actual time flowing through them. Even though they know that the things that move inside optical clocks are things like light. At times the resistance is dogged. At time it’s almost mindless, as if Morton’s demon is sitting on their shoulder. You have to make things extremely simple to corner the reluctant ego. The simplest thing I’ve found is the parallel-mirror light-clock. It’s employed in the simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity, and it can also be employed to demonstrate the simple reality that underlies gravitational time dilation. See this gif:
Gif image by Brian McPherson
The two light pulses aren’t going at the same speed. If they were, the parallel-mirror light clocks would stay in time. And if they did, the NIST optical clocks at different elevations would stay in time too. Only they don’t.
The speed of light varies in the room you’re in"
http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/
So, as you can see, I don't believe your CLAIM regarding the speed of light. The THEORY of relativity has lots of holes. MAINSTREAM 'science' is like MAINSTREAM media to me. In other words, be careful what you 'believe'.
That was my whole entry here, was to counter that one point. That no, you DO NOT know the speed of light. If you don't agree, I would recommend taking it up with all the physicists that pursue these fields. I would recommend looking into the Thunderbolts project and the 'Electric Universe' theory.
I would recommend looking deep into 'who' Einstein was as well, and 'who' put him there, so you can Learn why, it is pertinent.
And yes, I am done here. I have proved my claim. We DO NOT 'KNOW' the speed of light. We 'pretend' to. THEORY.
Any mention of someone's identity (character, personality, history) is a RED-HERRING.
Again, I don't agree. Take it up with my point and reason I gave before, not just beat the same thing ;)
I agree with you.
Gravity compresses (slows down) TIME (spacetime).
A clock on the ground will run slower than an identical clock in a tower.
Speed compresses (slows down) TIME (spacetime).
This is why identical clocks sent in opposing east and west trajectories will display different times upon arrival.
I really don't think we disagree on any of this.
we almost do.
But we don't agree what causes 'gravity'.
Check out the Electric Universe Theory.
I am much more inclined to that.
From an "engineering" standpoint, the actual "mechanism" of gravity is moot.
I've skimmed the Electric Universe Theory and I am unable to determine any practical improvement in "explanatory power" over "the standard model" (which seems to be the primary impediment to the adoption of "quantum gravity" and "super-string theory" and "m-theory" as well).
Maybe some day, you will!
I never mentioned that individual or any of their theories.
I appreciate your rigorous analysis, but we DO know the speed of light and this is a demonstrable fact.
For example, RADIO TRIANGULATION.
Click to watch 2 minutes,
If nobody knew the SPEED OF LIGHT, it would be impossible to track the PHYSICAL LOCATION of radio transmitters.
ok. You have willfully ignored my explanations, and are sticking to your dogma.
I don't agree. Neither do many. So, you will continue "Knowing", what you don't know. :)
If nobody knew the SPEED OF LIGHT, it would be impossible to track the PHYSICAL LOCATION of radio transmitters.
I already covered that previously.
You should scrutinize the information that you vehemently are avoiding.
We can 'know' whatever we want.
Even if it isn't 'knowing'.
Do better. Know nothing.
Do better. Draw a bright line between QUANTA and QUALIA.
If that is your mantra, great!
The clocks at different elevations run at different speeds because light is slowed down by GRAVITY (the closer you are to a large body, the slower light will travel because of the increased spacetime density).
The light is actually traveling at the same speed per unit of spacetime.
The light traveling through 10 units of interstellar (uncompressed) spacetime will appear from our vantage point to travel "further" than the same light traveling through 10 units of planetary (compressed) spacetime.
The relative (observable) speed of light is proportional to the number of units of spacetime it is traveling through.
Somehow didn't catch this one before sorry!
Nice theory. I don't believe it wholeheartedly though. THEORY of relativity. THEORY of gravity, etc.
Theories.
THere are others. You are arguing from a position of one, against the other, without knowing the 'other'.
Any theory is only as "good" as it is USEFUL.
It doesn't matter if a theory is "true", it only matters if it provides PREDICTIVE POWER.
We're basically ENGINEERS.
Efficacy is paramount.