Sorry if I come off that way, you're making it too easy. Light and sound have very different characteristics. If you don't want to acknowledge that, you're the one ignoring simplicity, not us.
This is just a face slapping contest to see who stings the most, it's going nowhere.
I'm hardly doing a thing to offend you. I'm pointing out facts that you have yet to refute, and then making an observation contrary to one you made. If you consider me saying that you're ignoring simplicity by making assertions against fact and doing nothing to back them up, again, sorry. You do something much the same, except you complain that of the ones asserting empirical fact with nothing to disprove them.
What you have to remember is, I have been on your side of the fence and said the very same type of things, as in, " nooo, don't be silly, the earth is round" and " well it's the speed of light, it's 186,000 miles per second, it's obvious" and stuff like that and you do feel a bit smug when explaining stuff like that to people who inquire only to later realise that what you have been doing, is regurgitating what you memorised from the books that you accepted as gospel truth.
I'll freely admit that I'm regurgitating the opinions of experts in the field. I've seen nothing to the contrary, from you or anyone else, and I'm not qualified in the field to make a judgement call without evidence. Just because some lunatic on a forum wants to ignore the obvious differences in properties between light and sound does not mean anyone should be convinced by him.
Now again, if you were to show that these didn't exist, or perform an experiment showing light and sound to be one and the same, we'd lend you an ear. You haven't, don't seem like you're inclined to, and until you do your sophistry is just that - fallacious and deliberately misleading, however nice it sounds on paper.
I'm also not here to puff out my chest and play appendage measuring contests, I'm simply using what I should have used all along, which is, my own mind to question the validity of what was drummed into it and here I am.
As I said previously, if you weren't criticising fields you refuse to understand, we'd probably be more inclined to hear you out. We still probably wouldn't believe you because you still have no empirical evidence, but you'd be taken more seriously in general and not constantly shot down for philosophising.
Speed of light is a constant. Meaning it's not effected a medium. Sound waves can be manipulated by a medium.
Recently the theory of varible speed of light has been studied but the speed of light has been observed to be constant.
Er, I feel the need to elaborate. The speed of light through a medium is not constant, due to the photon being absorbed and emitted as it progresses through the medium, assuming a transparent medium. However, the speed of the actual photon in between the emission and absorption is still c, the speed of light in a vacuum, so the speed of light never changes although it takes it longer to get through some mediums than others.