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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422086 > unrolled thread

the speed of light is wrong

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#422086 — the speed of light is wrong

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#422106

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:39:01 PM UTC-5, 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.

ScatMaker Scatted more Scat
Reported!!

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

#422107

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.

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

#422181

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.

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

#422186

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

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

#422370

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.

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

#422647

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.

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

#422698

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

#423273

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]

#423329

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]

#423440

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]

#423441

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]

#423444

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]

#423445

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]

#423446

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]

#423461

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]

#423462

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]

#423529

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?

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

#423530

Jim Petroff 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?

A few ohms lost in conductivity per cm, does no matter. Is proper ink or 
glue conductive, to begin with?? I have no idea.

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

#423549

In sci.physics Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> wrote:
> Jim Petroff 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?
> 
> 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?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web