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

Groups > sci.math > #377204 > unrolled thread

Re: the speed of light is wrong

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#377204 — Re: the speed of light is wrong

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.



Conclusion: YOU FUCKIN CANNOT TRUST THESE MOTHERFUCKERS WITH ANYTHING.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377207

What? Measuring the speed of light is simple. We know its value. In fact, we even define the meter after it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377221

W dniu piątek, 16 czerwca 2017 10:57:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Markus Klyver napisał:
> What? Measuring the speed of light is simple. We know its value. In fact, we even define the meter after it.

Sorry, but it's not simple.
You only know its value in inertial frames.
And thus the definition of meter You mean
is valid also  only in inertial frames. 
I.e. nowhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377218

Starmaker is an anti-science, religious nut (like most cranks here?). He once wrote:


"The goal of the 'scientific community' is to get rid of any evidence pointing to God."

--sci.math, Starmaker, November 7, 2014

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377220

Well its sometimes helpful to get rid of some stuff. 
What does one expect at the end of Hilberts hotel? 

Well for the natural numbers, we 
dont expect an end, they are just:

    N = {1,2,3,...}

The are not:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob's_Ladder

Am Freitag, 16. Juni 2017 14:35:11 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen:
> Starmaker is an anti-science, religious nut (like most cranks here?). He once wrote:
> 
> 
> "The goal of the 'scientific community' is to get rid of any evidence pointing to God."
> 
> --sci.math, Starmaker, November 7, 2014

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377592

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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377663

If you ask Albert Einstein "What is the speed of light?" He'll probably say..


"How the hell do I know. I don't know how the can opener works."


Then he'll tell me, "Why do you bother me with these stupid question? Can you not see I'm fuckin busy
designing a new bomb????"


And I look over his shoulder and ask him .."What kind of bomb is that?"


He says, "Oh, it's fuckin beautiful! This fuckin bomb will blow up a whole fuckin ship, kill all the motherfuckers on it!"

I ask, "How does it work?"


He says, "Oh, it's fuckin beautiful! This fuckin bomb will blow up a whole fuckin ship, kill all the motherfuckers on it!"


I say, "You said that already." "Where are your friends, how come they are not helping you with this new bomb?"


He says, "Oh, those fuckin motherfuckers are too afraid to be seen around me..FBI is bothering them, I mention bomb
and they all run the other way!"


I say to him, "Don't you want to do something else? Maybe find a cure for cancer??"


He says, "Are you fuckin kidding me? I LOVE THIS STUFF! I love building bombs and watching all these stupid motherfuckers die. They
call me Mr. BadASSSSSSSS."

"What?"

BadASSSSSSSS.


"What?"


Mr. BadASSSSSSSS!!!


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb2.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb3.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377829

okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....


where is Jupiter's Moons????


which moon do i measure the speed of light with? Callisto???



999999999


I'm getting close, am i?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377831

The Starmaker wrote:
> okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....
>
>
> where is Jupiter's Moons????
>
>
> which moon do i measure the speed of light with? Callisto???
>
>
>
> 999999999
>
>
> I'm getting close, am i?
>
There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.

-- 
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess.  Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377832

Peter Percival wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....
> >
> >
> > where is Jupiter's Moons????
> >
> >
> > which moon do i measure the speed of light with? Callisto???
> >
> >
> >
> > 999999999
> >
> >
> > I'm getting close, am i?
> >
> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.
> 


You really mean no none is allowed to test it to see if it is correct, is that right?



It's...forbidden.


GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377833

The Starmaker wrote:
> Peter Percival wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....
>>>
>>>
>>> where is Jupiter's Moons????
>>>
>>>
>>> which moon do i measure the speed of light with? Callisto???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 999999999
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm getting close, am i?
>>>
>> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.
>>
>
>
> You really mean no none is allowed to test it to see if it is correct, is that right?
>
>
>
> It's...forbidden.

It's not forbidden, it's pointless.  Here's an analogy: an inch is 
defined to be 2.54 cm.  It would be silly to measure an inch to see if 
it really is that long.  If it isn't, either you're not measuring 
carefully enough (so it's only a seeming "isn't") or the thing you're 
measuring isn't one inch long.  OK?

>
> GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!
>


-- 
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess.  Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377834

In article <oiovvp$ao1$1@news.albasani.net>, peterxpercival@hotmail.com 
says...
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Peter Percival wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> where is Jupiter's Moons????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> which moon do i measure the speed of light with? Callisto???
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 999999999
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm getting close, am i?
> >>>
> >> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You really mean no none is allowed to test it to see if it is correct, is that right?
> >
> >
> >
> > It's...forbidden.
> 
> It's not forbidden, it's pointless.  Here's an analogy: an inch is 
> defined to be 2.54 cm.  It would be silly to measure an inch to see if 
> it really is that long.  If it isn't, either you're not measuring 
> carefully enough (so it's only a seeming "isn't") or the thing you're 
> measuring isn't one inch long.  OK?

It's fascinating to watch people with no clue concerning metrology argue 
about it.

The definition of the inch establishes a relationship between one arbitrary 
system of units and another.  The speed of light is determined within a 
single system of units so your analogy fails.

In the case of the speed of light, the correct statement is not that the 
speed of light is x meters per second, the correct statement is that the 
meter is the distance light travels in 1/x second.  If that distance can be 
determined more precisely and repeatably than previous definitions of the 
meter then it's a good thing, if not then it's craziness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377862

Dne 25/06/2017 v 20:04 Peter Percival napsal(a):
>>
> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.
> 
It depends. c is defined for a sort of standard conditions.

But it can be still measured
if light behaves in various conditions differently.

By other words, if light at different conditions had propagated
by different speed, the metre would not have been defined by both.

It can be measured,
using a distance defined by the standard light,
if light passes the distance in different than expected time,
or if at expected time it passed different distance.

E.g. a specially taylored light beam
with nonzero orbital angular momentum and twisted wavefront
has the beam propagation speed slightly lower than c.

It is because the wavefront does not propagate linearly,
but on screwed trajectory of very tiny diameter.
So while its phase speed is still c,
its group and propagation speed is less than c.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377864

Dne 26/06/2017 v 07:45 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 25/06/2017 v 20:04 Peter Percival napsal(a):
>>>
>> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.
>>
> It depends. c is defined for a sort of standard conditions.
> 
> But it can be still measured
> if light behaves in various conditions differently.
> 
> By other words, if light at different conditions had propagated
> by different speed, the metre would not have been defined by both.
> 
> It can be measured,
> using a distance defined by the standard light,
> if light passes the distance in different than expected time,
> or if at expected time it passed different distance.
> 
> E.g. a specially taylored light beam
> with nonzero orbital angular momentum and twisted wavefront
> has the beam propagation speed slightly lower than c.
> 
> It is because the wavefront does not propagate linearly,
> but on screwed trajectory of very tiny diameter.
> So while its phase speed is still c,
> its group and propagation speed is less than c.
> 

P.S.: That all means there is really no point in measuring c,
but it still makes sense to measure speed of light.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377899

Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:12:30 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > If you ask Albert Einstein "What is the speed of light?" He'll probably say..
> >
> take your fictional stories elsewhere.


Well, since Albert Einstein not once mention the value of the speed of light, what do you suppose his answer would be????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377904

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:08:53 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Edward Prochak wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:12:30 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > If you ask Albert Einstein "What is the speed of light?" He'll probably say..
> > >
> > take your fictional stories elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Well, since Albert Einstein not once mention the value
> of the speed of light,

well ignoring the bad grammar here^^^^^^^^

> what do you suppose his answer would be????

"c"
He was a theoretical physicist after all.

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web