I would suggest you start with a high school Physics course. The speed of sound is 343 meters per second or about 767 miles per hour. The speed of light is 300,000,000 meters per second or about 670,616,629 miles per hour. In simpler terms, sound is slow, light is REALLY, REALLY fast. Light is particles (called photons). Sound is not. Sound does not travel in a vacuum... as in the space between the Earth and the Moon. Light does not "impact" with the moon. It is reflected off the moon. That's why you can SEE the moon... it's REFLECTED light. And NONE of this has the slightest connection to wind generated energy. You sound young, but obviously already thinking well. Hang in there. When you have more tools from education, you just might come up with some great ideas.
Einstein's theories were not accepted until tested. And, they have been tested every single day since then, right through today and throughout broad ranges of science. Having you quibble about know v assumed is just flat out silly. If you've got something, cite it.
Maybe you would like to talk about what experiments you think prove that. I suspect you are not able to, so you are just repeating a "fact" you read elsewhere.
Several parts of his theory were widely accepted even before being fully tested. This isn't a totally all or nothing situation.
The speed of light in a vacuum. It is widely believed by many physicists that the vacuum has its own energy level, that it is theoretically possible to distort space, and so it is a natural conclusion that it might be possible to increase the level of "vacuum" in space. When you talk of the "speed" of light in a "vacuum", you have to define exactly what you mean by those two words to have a meaningful discussion. Relativity tells us that the speed of light is always going to be the same from the perspective (reference frame) of the light that is moving (because the speed of light is intimately connected to the concept of time), but that does not necessarily automatically mean that light could not travel faster relative to an outside observer. (One example of this might be the speed of light very close to a black hole, relative to an outside observer) This could all just be a meaningless moot point, but it depends on what type of argument the claim is being used for.
That space and time are not just a cute model but instead physical? LOL The only warped 'space' I know of is on star trek LMAO Oh and @yardmeat s theory! Riiiiight! Look up Ron Hatch, if you do a good job of researching it you will be terrified to discover that Hatch used a modified Lorentz algorithm and newton ) NOT einstein and it included cosmic drag (tesla stuff) to get our satelite system from a best accuracy of 30+ft to the point of writing your name on a piece of paper through it accuracy.
Since I know even less about outer space than I do about what the potential is for anything to travel faster than the speed of light, I'll simply mention what the Wiki says about space being a vacuum: "Outer space is not completely empty; it is a near-perfect vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer...ace is not completely,, dust, and cosmic rays. The net-net of it for me? If somebody wants to get in some kind of space-bound hot rod and travel faster than the speed of light, then I wish them well, and hope they have a really, really good collision-avoidance mechanism on board!
Time dilation is basic physics. You previously said time dilation isn't real. Now you seem to have finally realized that your old arguments were scientifically ignorant. Here's your virtual pat on the back.
Warping of space and time . . . which you just denied that you denied . . . and are not going back to denying again . . . is basic physics.
