Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #377592

Re: the speed of light is wrong

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:39:02 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > i certaintly wouldn't use any of your..
> > > > > > > > 'measuring tools'.. to measure it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > just as i wouldn't measure Time using some ...clock a nut invented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The speed of light isn't measured anymore.  It's now a defined constant.  The value is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation: "a defined constant" means, somebody said "That's it, don't question it, it's set in stone..it's our law, don't fuckin break it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation: it's not exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, it's fucking exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > meter peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'meter' nonsence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words, those old guys in the scientific community decide to put up a 'wall' with a fixed idea, like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'the universe comes from nothing'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'exactly 299,792,458'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you're not suppose to go pass the wall they put up...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words, you think what 'they' want you to think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > untill 'they' say otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is...no one has ever seen light travel at the speed of light, or even touch it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And light travels sometimes...slow..depending what is slowing it down.
> > > > >
> > > > > The slow speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > The question is, How slow can light travel?
> > > >
> > > > Slower than slow...real slow.
> > > >
> > > > I mean...slow.
> > > >
> > > > not      so        fast
> > > >
> > > > not so q  uick
> > >
> > > i would have to guess the speed of light slows down to more than half
> > > it's speed when it is passing through something.
> >
> > I'm willing to bet that nobody today is trying to find out what is the speed of light. Because you'll discover that
> > your numbers will be different and that means you would have to go against the mafia of the 'scientific community'...
> >
> > ..and the mafia of the 'scientific community' instills FEAR in others.
> >
> > Truth is it's over 300,000,000 but somebody in the the mafia of the 'scientific community' wrote down 299,792,458.
> >
> > What is the name of the person that came up with the number 299,792,458???? There's your Mafia guy.
> 
> Now, I'm going to prove to everyone that the speed of light is a FAKE number.
> 
> You don't have to look it up to see it's a fake number
> You don't have to be a math whiz
> You don't need to a rocket scientist
> 
> Your own common sense with verify it.
> 
> Here is the value given: the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=the+speed+of+light
> 
> Now here is the proof it's a FAKE number....
> 
> Look at the number:  299 792 458
> 
> the first three digits is proof it's a fake number:
> 
> 299
> 
> it ends like a 99.9  percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)
> 
> 299...just short of 300
> 
> keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.
> 
> If you want to fix the number not to go past 300...
> you just write 299.
> 
> 299 792 458 was created as a fixed number to prevent it from going past 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 or 500,000,000
> 
> 299 792 458 m / s is a FAKE number
> 
> Now, why didn't they just changed it to 299 792 459  or 299 799 459  or 299 799 499 or 299 999 959 ??? To obvious. There would be too many number 9's.
> 
> It wouldn't look...natural.

So, I suspect...whoever came up with a fixed set speed of light of "299 792 458" probably wrote: 299 792 459..

and then his friends looked at that fixed number and told him..


"Did you know that all the numbers total to "9"s???"

"People are going to get suspicous and ask "Why are all the numbers total nine????"

"You're going to have to change that number so it does'n all total to "9"s!!!"


So he said, "Okay, I'll change the last number to 8."



Google, what is the speed of light?

https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+speed+of+light?



Okay, truth is...nobody knows what the speed of light is. Not even Albert Einstein *ever* knew what the speed of light is or was.

Albert Einstein never mentioned anywhere what the speed of light is. He simply didn't know...


which is evident in his ...formular E=Mc^2.


Since Albert Einstein didn't know the speed of light, he didn't know how big the atomic bomb would be. He miscalculated.



He wrote: "A single bomb of this

type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy

the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory."

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first



Albert Einstein could have blown up the whole planet because he miscalculated the speed of light. 


"might very well destroy

the whole port"



How big is a port?




"Stand back, no telling how big this thing is going to get!"

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 01:36 -0700
  Re: the speed of light is wrong Markus Klyver <markusklyver@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 01:57 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-16 06:14 -0700
  Re: the speed of light is wrong Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2017-06-16 05:35 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-06-16 05:39 -0700
  Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 10:53 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 11:12 -0700
      Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-25 10:51 -0700
        Re: the speed of light is wrong Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-25 19:04 +0100
          Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-25 11:30 -0700
            Re: the speed of light is wrong Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-25 19:38 +0100
              Re: the speed of light is wrong "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 15:15 -0400
          Re: the speed of light is wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:45 +0200
            Re: the speed of light is wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:56 +0200
      Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-26 12:08 -0700
        Re: the speed of light is wrong Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 12:19 -0700

csiph-web