'Speed of Light' Thought Experiment

[russ_watters]

Its worse than that, Doc (edit: well, that's already a pretty fundamental misunderstanding...)-- In your last post, Thomas2, you propose using markings on a rope to measure distance. This implies that distance is invariant - it isn't. Read this next part very carfully: Two people on different ends of a rope being reeled out will not necessarily agree on how much rope is being reeled out and will not necessarily agree with what the markings on the rope say about the distance traveled. This is a consequence of SR. The use of markings on a rope is an invalid way to measure distance.

What we have here is a simple refusal to accept SR.

 

[Thomas2]

What we have here is a simple refusal to accept SR.

SR does not enter into this consideration at all, only the principle of the invariance of the speed of light in moving reference frames. SR is derived from similar considerations but gives results inconsistent with the above one.
You can't use the conclusions of derived theories in order to falsify the original principles from which they were derived. The only question of relevance here is if the principle of the invariance of the 'speed' of light is being interpreted consistently.

 

[russ_watters]

You misunderstand my point - being uncomfortable with what SR says and knowing that SR is derived from the constancy of C, you're trying to attack SR by finding an error in our understanding of the constancy of C.

Caveat: time dilation and length contraction were first derived as consequences of SR, but now they have been verified experimentally. So it doesn't matter which end you look at it from (how time dilation and length contraction affect C or how C affects time dilation or length contraction), you're wrong both ways!