Groups > sci.physics > #635920 > unrolled thread

the speed of light is wrong

Started by	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
First post	2017-06-09 11:38 -0700
Last post	2017-06-25 14:26 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 55 — 19 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

  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 pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-09 13:36 -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 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:18 -0700
              Re: the speed of light is wrong "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-10 13:15 -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 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:26 -0700
                Re: the speed of light is wrong mosca.muha@gmail.com - 2017-06-13 07:29 -0700
              Re: the speed of light is wrong "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:20 -0700
                Re: the speed of light is wrong "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-13 17:03 -0700
                Re: the speed of light is wrong benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 20:56 -0400
                Re: the speed of light is wrong Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-06-18 14:07 -0700
                  Re: the speed of light is wrong "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:31 -0700
                    Re: the speed of light is wrong Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-06-27 15:39 -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 Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 05:22 -0700
                      Re: the speed of light is wrong Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:15 -0700
                        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 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:42 -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 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:20 -0700
        Re: the speed of light is wrong pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-12 12:31 -0700
      Re: the speed of light is wrong Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 16:57 -0500
        Re: the speed of light is wrong benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-09 18:54 -0400
      Re: the speed of light is wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 09:54 +0200
        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 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:16 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:17 -0700
      Re: the speed of light is wrong "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-10 13:13 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-10 13:06 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-10 21:28 -0700
    Re: the speed of light is wrong "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:30 -0700
      Re: the speed of light is wrong "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-25 14:26 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

#637662

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2017-06-25 10:51 -0700
Message-ID	<594FF80D.6A94@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#637468

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]

#637664

From	Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 19:04 +0100
Message-ID	<oiou01$elg$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#637662

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]

#637667

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2017-06-25 11:30 -0700
Message-ID	<59500153.378D@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#637664

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]

#637668

From	Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 19:38 +0100
Message-ID	<oiovvp$ao1$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#637667

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]

#637672

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 15:15 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.33b9d5c39532ed7098adb9@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#637668

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]

#637743

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-26 07:45 +0200
Message-ID	<oiq6rh$64i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#637664

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]

#637744

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-26 07:56 +0200
Message-ID	<oiq7fs$7vk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#637743

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]

#637911

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-27 12:15 +0000
Message-ID	<oiti8l$uo6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#637744

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]

#637912

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-27 12:21 +0000
Message-ID	<oitiks$uo6$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#637911

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]

#637931

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2017-06-27 16:22 +0000
Message-ID	<ubda2e-6m8.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#637912

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]

#637954

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-27 20:36 +0000
Message-ID	<oiufjk$j8q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#637931

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]

#637957

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2017-06-27 21:00 +0000
Message-ID	<pjta2e-mba.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#637954

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]

#637959

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-27 21:10 +0000
Message-ID	<oiuhjm$j8q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#637957

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]

#637979

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2017-06-27 21:52 +0000
Message-ID	<1m0b2e-8la.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#637959

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]

#638145

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-29 09:55 +0000
Message-ID	<oj2iqr$18dm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#637979

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]

#637930

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2017-06-27 16:20 +0000
Message-ID	<57da2e-6m8.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#637911

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]

#637761

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-26 05:22 -0700
Message-ID	<2fdd9ccf-f0b8-4f50-8174-b5cf808a604e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#637664

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 2:04:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Percival wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > okay, i think i figured out how to measure the speed of light....

In normal writing, i is always capitalized as I. Now you know. Grade? F-.

> > where is Jupiter's Moons????

The word is are, not is. Are you==Starmaker English Challenged?
Sure I make typos now and then, but hey, with a name like Mahipal...

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

How many moons do you==Starmaker have access to see by night light?
Why should one look for one's lost keys under the well lit lamp only?!

> > 999999999

Wait... what?! Devilish! Isn't that just 666,666,666 inversed/inverted?
What's even weirder is that 666 equals Ronald Wilson Reagan?! Times 3.
Coincidence Or Conspiracy K-word-hear (COCK)? Cock a doodle do...

> > I'm getting close, am i?

Close? That's a funny way to spell desperate Desperate DESPERATE.  

Even TrumpET brags about his college he never attended classes at.
I adore the latest ETRADE ads: The Dumbest Guy In High School Buys A Yacht.

Just because you are, shouldn't mean you ought not have gone to college.

I'm beginning to calculate and understand why TrumpET loves Stupid People.
As OneStone is proclaimed to have noticed/plagiarized: Stupidit(y) Is Infinite.

Speaking of pitching unscalable TrumpET's solar walls... just one word... Ropes.
How about you Stupid People start reading about The Trojan Horse in Greek Mythology?

> There is no point in measuring c, it is 299792458 m/s by definition.

Speaking Canonicall(y), c=1. Ergo, E=M. Ring of Truth, Philip Morrison (MIT).

> -- 
> 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

Found out? Cast out? Caste? Feh... words/numbers are useless in The Big Pictures.

-- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! 
                          /\  "If the line between science fiction and 
                            /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy, 
 /\                         \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!" 
 \           /\/\  /  \   \/                    Mahipal Virdy 
 /   ==    \  /  \/\/                         The |meforce> Paradox 
 \/                            http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

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

#637765

From	Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-26 06:15 -0700
Message-ID	<27f62238-b88a-44f5-878c-1c708deebf63@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#637468

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.

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

#637787

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2017-06-26 12:08 -0700
Message-ID	<59515BBC.47A8@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#637765

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]

#636641

From	Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-16 08:42 -0700
Message-ID	<4a335a1e-0ff8-420a-b202-beb8e9aad672@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#636516

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 12:35:06 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
[]
> 
> 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. 

The speed of light is tested daily by your GPS. If the value for the
speed of light, c, was wrong, the GPS would show wrong results.

> 
> 
> Truth is it's over 300,000,000 but somebody in the the mafia
> of the 'scientific community' wrote down 299,792,458. 

So you are saying even light doesn't travel at the speed
of light? You funny guy!  LOL

ed

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

csiph-web

the speed of light is wrong

Contents

#637662

#637664

#637667

#637668

#637672

#637743

#637744

#637911

#637912

#637931

#637954

#637957

#637959

#637979

#638145

#637930

#637761

#637765

#637787

#636641