对了，我忽略了一点：这里所谓的悖论是针对相信光速不变的人来说的，对于那些本来就不相信的人来说，是否悖论取决于他与相对论的光速不变的区别是什么。。。。下面是我与一位声称不认同光速不变但又有他自己的理论的人之间的对话：

Javad Fardaei

2 hrs ago

Dear Dai

I am sure, you know, there is different between Sunlight and Laser beam light.

The property of sunlight is from high frequencies to low frequencies, and from short wavelength to high wavelength, that each ray has its own speed, but laser beam has just one frequency and wavelength.

Sunlight has visible to invisible character...

Unfortunately science mislead itself for century by saying "speed of light" is constant which it is not.

sadly, our icons did not detect this simple phenomenon, either. What I am saying is right and it conform by science as well. Science is wrong on light and sunlight speed

https://www.academia.edu/70960207/Science_is_wrong_on_Light_and_Photon

regards & thank you.

Like

Rongqing Dai

9 mins ago

well, for the sake of the paradox that I am presenting here, what kind of light is not important.....in the container, the reason I am using laser is to create a sense of concentrated beam over a300000km length....just for psychological reason.....it does not really matter.....even if it is just a single photon, the paradox still holds since it is in vacuum without any medium.......as for beam A and beam B, the type of light is even less important.....they are just used as position markers.....if you can imagine well, then you might just assume there are two virtual empty pillars....I use beams of light for, again, making it easy for people to imagine.....

The real deal here is that no one (not even Einstein) has ever tried to put two relatively moving frames of reference connected as the targets of the SAME photon (or beam) to examine the logic behind the constancy of the speed of light.....Although there have been many critics of the constancy of the speed of light like yourself, I would say that this essay is the first one that provides a realistic paradox that no one can deny!

As for you, a critics of the constancy of the speed of light, it might or might not be a paradox depending on how you differ from the constancy of the speed of light.....if your difference is only in whether sunlight and other lights are the same, then it would still be a paradox.....if you don't agree with that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the selection of frame of reference, then it is no longer a paradox for you....

This paradox holds only to the mainstream physicists who believe that the speed of light in vacuum is constant to all frames of reference......

下面是我在本文的英文版贴出的地方加的提示，同样适用于这里：

A courtesy reminder

I have been often surprised by how poorly professionals read very short essays....so as a courtesy reminder for anyone who would come to comment: Please answer the question whether the laser beam would hit the hole and the beam A or B at the same time as a proof that you do have the ability to understand this short essay.....

居然没有一个人能读懂这个悖论？人类文明衰败如此？？？下面是我在一个专业讨论论坛上的留言：

It seems that academic physicists are collectively so intellectually crippled simply because they are so weak in philosophical thinking.....

A typical symptom is that when given a writing they would start a big talk and draw conclusions without even comprehending the content....Recently I am presenting a paradox challenging the constancy of the speed of light and I have posted it in multiple places in the internet, but NOT a single PROFESSIONAL PHYSICIST seems to be intellectually capable enough even to read and grasp the content of that very short essay....the only thing they could do is to come and make IRRELEVANT comments------this is so typical with nowadays disabled professional community of physicists, they are just intellectually SO WEAK.

It makes me feel so bad every time when I need to teach them how to read and think and comment maturely like teaching little kids!!! How corrupted is nowadays community of professional physicists???

Here is another chance for those intellectually weak physicists: ARE you even able to read this short essay correctly:

https://www.academia.edu/s/3b35ce08b7?source=link

The edifice of physics is trembling......

为了方便广大读者理解，我将前面的回复简化一下：没那么多可废话的，只需回答一个问题：那束光是否同时到达那个小孔与光柱？？？

你尽可以发挥想象力构想更多的故事，但为了回答本文的悖论只需回答一个问题：那束光是否同时到达那个小孔与光柱A。。。至于其它无关的想象可以另写一篇文章去阐述，混在这里会误导他人。。。。

应该不是悖论。光速不变是光速不随观察者所在坐标系而变。假设那激光灯固定在船头，对准船尾，再假设在船尾有一面朝前的反光镜。如果你的朋友站在两个柱子中间，跟那两个柱子相对静止，他会看到那激光源在B点发出的激光以相对于他和柱子的光速c在2/5秒时到达船尾，再以相对于他的光速走3/5秒到达A柱子，对他来说光速c不变。如果你站在那快船最前端的激光器旁边往船尾看，那激光会以相对于你的光速c往后照射，一秒钟后到达船尾，再过一秒后你能看到镜子里反射回来的光，对你来说光速也不变。如果你从船上下来问你朋友：你刚才看到往后照的光是不是走的比c慢，镜子反射后往前照的光是不是比c快？他会告诉你说，不是，我测出的前后方向的光速是一样的，但是从光源到镜子用的时间不到一秒，而反射光用了一秒多才回到箱子那头你站的地方，一来一回一共用了两秒，但光速前后方向都是c，本身没变。

在文学城文化走廊与网友的对话：

Kirn：脑子反应不过来，没看懂

慕容青草：注意力不要放在那两个光柱，它们只是用来表示距离的。重点是真空中光速不随惯性系选择而变。在那个长箱子里，因为它的长度是光速大小，所以1秒钟后，光正好从一头到达尾部。。。而那束激光发射时，船头与光柱A的距离也正好是光速大小，所以如果光对于光柱A的速度也正好是c，那么1秒钟之后，那束激光也应该到达光柱A。。。但这是不可能的，因为这时光柱A与船尾之间相差了有近二十万公里。。。

但是，如果你说因为光柱A相对于船头有一个速度V，所以，激光不会在1秒钟后到达光柱的话，那么你等于说激光相对于光柱A的速度要从光速中扣去速度V，那就违背了真空中光速不变的前提---这就是本文提出的悖论。。。

考虑到真空中光速不变已经是当今世界物理学的最不可动摇的基础，我相信应该很快就有人能站出来指出本文的悖论的错误。。。。。。。如果没有的话，问题就严重了！！！！！！------虽然可能比不上能量守恒被打破那么严重，也很严重！甚至比能量守恒被打破更严重。。。。。

光速不变是相对论与量子场论的基础，如果没人能指出本文的悖论有什么问题，整个现代物理学的大厦开始摇晃了。。。。。。之所以说这可能比我之前指出的能量守恒被打破更严重是因为至今为止我只指出宏观能量可以不守恒以及红移蓝移能量不守恒，还没有触及到作为现代物理的最基础的相对论和量子场论。。。。。。如果没有人能指出本文的悖论有什么问题，那就不一样喽。。。。。物理学的大厦要摇晃喽。。。。。。不过我相信，很快就会有人指出这里的问题的。。。。。中国著名网红李永乐曾经表示过相对论是不可置疑的。。。。这里如果有人认识他，不妨将此文发给他，相信他很快就能找出这里的问题。。。。