Jim, I apologize, I will get to your post a bit later.
Sparky:"...my memory of the Michelson and Morley experiment was from my freshman physics course 34 years ago..."
Well, you remembered the right concept at least.
Sparky: "As to people not understanding GR and SR, read the early posts and the questions they asked."
I am very well aware what the people of this forum know, I have been posting here of some five years. The was not even your claims, but mainly your attitude, the bedside manners you mentioned in another post. You came "heavy" on the topic, and trying to impress. Very likely, according to your first post, because you knew a bit more than the others, and because chances for someone to know more than you did were slim.Which, if you really want to be honest, was not fair to the others. Hence me comming even "heavier" on you.
Sparky:"As for your understanding of GR and SR that was not questioned though you took offense when none was meant."
I didn't take offense. It was just a way of telling you that you actually stumbled upon that 0.1% chance that someone knew a bit more than you did, in the context above, and your statement was rather incorrect.
Sparky: "But this thread was not meant to be a doctorial theses, it was meant to explain what is known and what is not known about the speed of light."
Well, here we agree. But unfortunately, from the very beginning, the question asked required exactly GR, and some QFT to even discuss it in a useful manner. Back of the envelpe arguments simply do not work in this case (like yours about the upper bound on the size of the photons). I am sorry that I have to say this, but they simply don't work. If you have time, you can check it by yourself.
Sparky:"To make it interesting, one can add in the things that seem strange (matter can travel faster than light, but only if you rig the race), and questions knowledgeable people still have about light."
Maybe, but a lot of the things that seem strange are in fact not. And there are a lot of misconceptions, hence the need to be exact.
As for FTL, I still don't know of any (valid) experiment that shows that. And this is not scientific bigotry. Simply there hasn't been satisfactory observational data yet to this effect.
Sparky:"Think of the recent experiment where they froze light for a few seconds. This is what makes science interesting and leads to more scientists."
Yes, I agree with you that this was a very interesting experiment, and long overdue for that matter.
Sparky: "Who would want to become a scientist if they knew they would have to face a tigeress like you every day?"
Me a tigress? Why, but I am a lamb, really.
Joking aside, you might be surprised of how often one has to face tigers, panthers, and other species in the scientific community. It is a matter of fact. When you publish, when you review, when you give a lecture, when you discuss experimental results. The form in which they object might be different, butthe end result is the same. And whoever wants to pursue science, must become aware of this, and learn to deal with it.
Sparky: "...I am just interested in science."
Me too. So discuss something more interesting.
