All descriptions I read are from light being absorbed, not just passing by if it was merely being transmitted through a material that passes light like glass. — noAxioms

Yes, that's what I meant by "photoelectric effect", the interaction between photons and electrons (maybe I misused the terminology), such as when photons are absorbed and reemitted when light passes through a medium like glass.

What does any of this have to do with relativity thought experiments that F-E is asking about? — noAxioms

It concerns the speed at which light is transmitted. It's known that the speed of light is different in different mediums, and this involves refraction. I believe the classical way of understanding this, understanding light as waves, involves the wavelength of the light. The quantum understanding of this difference in speed involves the light photons being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material.

The inadequacy of which demonstrates that there is no underlying reality for this conceptual structure. — Metaphysician Undercover

Any further reference on this? Feynman's lectures are quite insightful, it seems.

Essentially you need to tell me the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and given that we know light speed, we can compute (not measure) the time it takes for light to make the trip in the frame you've specified. This is obviously not a measurement of light speed since we're assuming a constant for it in our calculation. — noAxioms

If we have the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and know the times at E1 and E2, we can calculate the light speed. (not measure?). Why assume it a constant when we are trying to measure it in the first place? Now I know that the clocks need to be synchronized, or the other option is slowly moved apart. If we are able to have control over how fast the clocks are moved apart, we can establish the error bounds due to non-synchronization and take this into account.

I believe there have been some studies done in this area.

Essentially you need to tell me the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and given that we know light speed, we can compute (not measure) the time it takes for light to make the trip in the frame you've specified — noAxioms

Why "compute" and not "measure"?

It concerns the speed at which light is transmitted. It's known that the speed of light is different in different mediums, and this involves refraction. I believe the classical way of understanding this, understanding light as waves, involves the wavelength of the light. The quantum understanding of this difference in speed involves the light photons being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material. — Metaphysician Undercover

Didn't know this. Looked it up, and pretty much yes. They said that light was absorbed by the lattice, not the atoms, as evidenced by the absence of absorption lines in the refracted spectrum.

If we have the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and know the times at E1 and E2, we can calculate the light speed. (not measure?). Why assume it a constant when we are trying to measure it in the first place? — FreeEmotion

This can be done, but the synchronization of the two clocks is frame dependent. For that matter, so is the distance measurement since E1 and E2 are not simultaneous.

Now I know that the clocks need to be synchronized, or the other option is slowly moved apart.

If we are able to have control over how fast the clocks are moved apart, we can establish the error bounds due to non-synchronization and take this into account.

Slowly moving apart doesn't necessarily work. You start at a midpoint and move the two clocks symmetrically in opposite directions. That defines a frame, but the two clocks stay synchronized despite the speed at which this might be done. Now you can measure your light speed. Painful way to do it, but valid.

Why "compute" and not "measure"? — FreeEmotion

If you use synchronized clocks, it is a measurement. If I know light speed, I can compute the time and don't need the clocks. But synchronization is frame dependent.

All the thought experiments you reference assume as a postulate that light speed is constant. None of the thought experiments involve the measurement of it. I have performed a light-speed measurement in a lab exercise using the length of a hallway and only an RPM meter as my clock. We got about one digit of accuracy with that setup.

What is the underlying method of light transmission that relativity ultimately describes? — FreeEmotion

The fundamental issue that you are inquiring into is whether STR should be elevated to an ontology. The answer is no, though some science fiction writers wish to do so. STR is simply a mathematical transformation between two frames of references. That is all.

At the superficial level, how can STR explain anything, e.g. time dilation and contraction between two frames if references, when all frames if references are reciprocal. It can't.

Now, GTR tried to address these issues, but the meaning of time is not the same in both theories (looking at the equations) and for sure there is no reciprocity since one frame of reference under GTR is considered to be accelerating! (They both can't be accelerating). Bergson and Robbins do the best at addressing these issues head on.

STR and GTR are best left as tools for scientific calculations and measurements and discarded as a means for arriving at any ontological meaning, which is why it cannot and should not be brought into any philosophical questions. To do so creates a mess.

They said that light was absorbed by the lattice, not the atoms, as evidenced by the absence of absorption lines in the refracted spectrum. — noAxioms

Absorbed by the lattice? Doesn't "lattice' just refer to the discrete model, as an alternative to the space-time continuum model? It is my understanding that since they can't tell which atoms actually absorb the light, they have to model it as if all the atoms are potentially absorbing the light.

We got about one digit of accuracy with that setup. — noAxioms

I'm curious what percentage accuracy?

I'm curious what percentage accuracy? — FreeEmotion

Within 10% error

If you use synchronized clocks, it is a measurement. If I know light speed, I can compute the time and don't need the clocks. But synchronization is frame dependent. — noAxioms

So in the above example, it is possible to synchronize clocks, and it is possible to measure the one way speed of light?

How widely accepted is the above view? When we hear that a certain experiment 'proves relativity' we get the impression that scientists are one step closer to establishing relativity as absolute reality. Is this generally the popular view, what do you think?

So in the above example, it is possible to synchronize clocks, and it is possible to measure the one way speed of light? — FreeEmotion

Given an arbitrary choice of frame, yes, this measurement can be done.
Given a different frame choice, the chock synchronization would be different and therefore the time between the same two events E1 and E2 would be different, but the spatial distance between them would be different as well, so the measurement of light speed would still come out the same each time.

There is always dissenting opinions. Unfortunately, such opinions are usually suppressed in science and dissenters ostracized until there is overwhelming evidence to force a change. This is where Kuhn hit it right.

When we hear that a certain experiment 'proves relativity' we get the impression that scientists are one step closer to establishing relativity as absolute reality. — FreeEmotion

What do you mean by 'proves reality' and which scientific finding lays this claim?
It sounds like a philosophical assertion, and you're hearing one person's asserted interpretation of some particular finding, and not what the experiment actually demonstrates.

What do you mean by 'proves reality' and which scientific finding lays this claim? — noAxioms

It was all the rave in the media when gravitational waves were detected, this proves GR.

Nowadays, with every inch of our world so polluted by money b and the desire by science to get some of that windfall of money (being printed incessantly by the central banks), I take with a grain of salt and new calamity or exciting new discovery that makes its way into the popular psyche (time travel anyone?).

I am not alone in questioning the many ways scientists have figured out how to arrive at desired results. The whole world has been turned into one giant scam. Too bad. My belief in that people will do anything for easy money remains unshakeable.

http://www.everythingselectric.com/gravitational-waves/

Interesting links. There are quotes such as 'Einstein was right" as if it some sort of a validation to prop up Einstein. I don't hear anyone say "Newton was right" when a rocket takes off.