Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422086 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-09 11:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-10 13:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 31 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-09 11:38 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 13:24 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-09 13:50 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-10 10:55 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-10 11:18 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-12 09:40 -0700
Re: the speed of light is wrong The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-15 09:34 -0700
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 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 Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-27 12:15 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-27 12:21 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-27 16:22 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-27 20:36 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-27 21:00 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-27 21:10 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-27 21:52 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 09:55 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-27 16:20 +0000
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 "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 20:51 +1000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-12 19:54 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 11:00 +0000
Re: the speed of light is wrong Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-10 13:06 -0700
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiufjk$j8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423549 |
jimp wrote: >>> If you are so strong in physics, what is the most affordable way to >>> construct a conductive ink which may dry using a hair dryer? >> >> A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper ink >> or glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea. > > Did it ever occur to you to do a Google search on conductive ink and > read some of the 3,110,000 results? Are you so stupid not seeing that's exactly the problem? I want to make my own.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjta2e-mba.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #423556 |
In sci.physics Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>>> If you are so strong in physics, what is the most affordable way to >>>> construct a conductive ink which may dry using a hair dryer? >>> >>> A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper ink >>> or glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea. >> >> Did it ever occur to you to do a Google search on conductive ink and >> read some of the 3,110,000 results? > > Are you so stupid not seeing that's exactly the problem? I want to make my > own. Are you so stupid you can not see the many links about DIY conductive ink one gets when doing a Google search? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiuhjm$j8q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423557 |
jimp wrote: >>>> A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper ink >>>> or glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea. >>> >>> Did it ever occur to you to do a Google search on conductive ink and >>> read some of the 3,110,000 results? >> >> Are you so stupid not seeing that's exactly the problem? I want to make >> my own. > > Are you so stupid you can not see the many links about DIY conductive > ink one gets when doing a Google search? You are a waste of time, unfortunately. But thanks for trying. If you have any experience with it, let me know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1m0b2e-8la.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #423558 |
In sci.physics Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> wrote: > jimp wrote: > >>>>> A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper ink >>>>> or glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea. >>>> >>>> Did it ever occur to you to do a Google search on conductive ink and >>>> read some of the 3,110,000 results? >>> >>> Are you so stupid not seeing that's exactly the problem? I want to make >>> my own. >> >> Are you so stupid you can not see the many links about DIY conductive >> ink one gets when doing a Google search? > > You are a waste of time, unfortunately. But thanks for trying. If you have > any experience with it, let me know. 3,110,000 results from a Google search to include basic information, who sells such stuff and how to make your own and you expect someone to spend their time and write up something special just for you. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 09:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oj2iqr$18dm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423560 |
jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> wrote: >> jimp wrote: >> >>>>>> A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper >>>>>> ink or glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea. >>>>> >>>>> Did it ever occur to you to do a Google search on conductive ink and >>>>> read some of the 3,110,000 results? >>>> >>>> Are you so stupid not seeing that's exactly the problem? I want to >>>> make my own. >>> >>> Are you so stupid you can not see the many links about DIY conductive >>> ink one gets when doing a Google search? >> >> You are a waste of time, unfortunately. But thanks for trying. If you >> have any experience with it, let me know. > > 3,110,000 results from a Google search to include basic information, who > sells such stuff and how to make your own and you expect someone to > spend their time and write up something special just for you. Thank you, jimp. You are a wonderful human being. No shit. Love you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57da2e-6m8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #423529 |
In sci.physics Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > >> P.S.: That all means there is really no point in measuring c, but it >> still makes sense to measure speed of light. > > If you are so strong in physics, what is the most affordable way to > construct a conductive ink which may dry using a hair dryer? Your question is economics and engineering. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59515BBC.47A8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #423329 |
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]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 20:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohj7bv$1j20$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422107 |
On 10/06/17 06:50, 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. The important universal constant c has a defined value. It also happens to be the speed of light relative to its source. But the speed of light relative to other objects can have any practical value. > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA792A1CAB2676stillnolawsuitedmo@208.90.168.18> |
| In reply to | #422238 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> wrote in news:ohj7bv$1j20$2@gioia.aioe.org: > On 10/06/17 06:50, 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. > > The important universal constant c has a defined value. It also > happens to be the speed of light relative to its source. But the speed > of light relative to other objects can have any practical value. Define "any practical value" in this case. -- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "Be careful though, your kookshit about how I am this and that will reveal who the real kook is." - Edmo in PKB mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohgjge$1rb0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422086 |
Poutnik wrote: >> The speed of light isn't measured anymore. It's now a defined >> constant. The value is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. > > Addendum: As it was realized it is more constant and precise than all > previously used distance standards it was measured with. Too bad you can't prove it. You just move your lips. Infact the empirical data from measurements shows exactly the opposite. What a shame, at your age. You should know better. I would understand a young student, not being aware, but you, at your age. What a illegitimate shame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <F_udnRDm0-TpzKHEnZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422086 |
"The Starmaker" wrote in message news:593AEB3E.5E36@ix.netcom.com... 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. *** here's the low-down on the SOL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6iA3iD1q4ovgZrhzriOQZNROOXuQzZsvuaquxhCWAA/edit?usp=sharing
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web