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

Groups > sci.physics > #606842 > unrolled thread

speed of light was actually faster right

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  speed of light was actually faster right  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-28 10:25 -0800
    Re: speed of light was actually faster right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-28 10:34 -0800
      no skwares were consulted\abused noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
      Re: speed of light was actually faster right "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-28 17:24 -0800
        Re: speed of light was actually faster right noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 14:32 -0800
    Re: speed of light was actually faster right Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 -0600
      Re: speed of light was actually faster right Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-28 13:35 -0600
        Re: speed of light was actually faster right "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:13 -0800
          Re: speed of light was actually faster right jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-02 23:32 +0000
            Re: speed of light was actually faster right benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 19:13 -0500
              Re: speed of light was actually faster right jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-03 01:13 +0000
            Re: speed of light was actually faster right noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 18:08 -0800
          Re: speed of light was actually faster right "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-02 17:47 -0800
    Re: speed of light was actually faster right "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-28 17:16 -0800
      Re: speed of light was actually faster right The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-29 00:08 -0800
    Re: speed of light was actually faster right "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:00 -0800
      Re: speed of light was actually faster right "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 16:12 -0800

#606842 — speed of light was actually faster right

A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.

In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/




Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.

When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.

If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!

I'll go get a ruler and measure it myself...

i don't fukin trust you guys.

You are NOT to be trusted.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#606845

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.
> 
> In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/
> 
> Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.
> 
> When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
> was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
> thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.
> 
> If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!
> 
> I'll go get a ruler and measure it myself...
> 
> i don't fukin trust you guys.
> 
> You are NOT to be trusted.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm



I look at E=mc2 and
I see that
enegry is mass and mass is energy..
but there is no reason why the 
c2
speed of light should be there.

It's wrong.

It's just a ...fix. 


There are a lot of stuff that travel faster than the speed of light..
'thought' travels faster than the speed of light.

The properties of thought are different than the properties of light.

I can see the light coming..

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

#606856 — no skwares were consulted\abused

hey, the secondpower of the spEEd of lightwaves,
is the rate of expansion of the wavefront;
the diameter of the wavefront is 39,20,00 miles after one second, so,
modulo pi (thirty-one tenths

> The properties of thought are different than the properties of light.
> 
> I can see the light coming..

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

#606967

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:34:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.
> > 
> > In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.
> > 
> > http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/
> > 
> > Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.
> > 
> > When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
> > was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
> > thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.
> > 
> > If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!
> > 
> > I'll go get a ruler and measure it myself...
> > 
> > i don't fukin trust you guys.
> > 
> > You are NOT to be trusted.
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm
> 
> 
> 
> I look at E=mc2 and
> I see that
> enegry is mass and mass is energy..

You don't even know what "is" means.  E=mcc no more means that vis and mass are the same than V=abc means that volume and width are the same.

> but there is no reason why the 
> c2
> speed of light should be there.
>
> It's wrong.
> 
> It's just a ...fix. 

Newton found the distinction between momentum and vis.  Independent conservation laws for them explains why when you drop a stack of two balls of different masses, the leihter one springs back up farther than it was dropped.

> There are a lot of stuff that travel faster than the speed of light..
> 'thought' travels faster than the speed of light.

Only limbs travel.  Lots of things are faster than celerity as they can't go anywhere.  Don't you want to be freeer than celerity instead?

> The properties of thought are different than the properties of light.
> 
> I can see the light coming..

Brains heed EM but if EM leaks into extra dimensions or wormholes then they can see the uncanny.

-Aut

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

#607079

so, the equation is not really
in a form that is cannonically ,,, any thing, but
one can solve for the spEEd of light

> > I can see the light coming..
> 
> Brains heed EM but if EM leaks into extra dimensions or wormholes then they can see the uncanny.
> 
> -Aut

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

#606860

On 11/28/2016 12:25 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>
>
> Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.
>
> When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
> was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
> thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.

> If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!
>
> I'll go get a ruler and measure it myself...
>
> i don't fukin trust you guys.
>
> You are NOT to be trusted.
>


*light is slow*, in one nano second it goes only 1 foot.

it takes light 1 micro second to go only 1,000 feet

Stock market day traders are faster than that.

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

#606863

On 11/28/2016 1:16 PM, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 12:25 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>>
  ow*, in one nano second it goes only 1 foot.
>
> it takes light 1 micro second to go only 1,000 feet
>
> Stock market day traders are faster than that.
>
>
  test

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

#607593

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:35:24 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 1:16 PM, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> > On 11/28/2016 12:25 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >>
>   ow*, in one nano second it goes only 1 foot.
> >
> > it takes light 1 micro second to go only 1,000 feet
> >
> > Stock market day traders are faster than that.
> >
> >
>   test

C ways always c Reality is a photon never change speed or bounce.Nobel thinking Trebert  Ps thanks Treb   

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

#607619

reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:

> C ways always c Reality is a photon never change speed or bounce.Nobel
> thinking Trebert  Ps thanks Treb   

I see you have never heard of a mirror or the propagation delay in
optical cable.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#607631

On 12/2/2016 6:32 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> C ways always c Reality is a photon never change speed or bounce.Nobel
>> thinking Trebert  Ps thanks Treb
>
> I see you have never heard of a mirror or the propagation delay in
> optical cable.
>
Treeb know Einstein, Chimp, and you didn't. He's Nobel thinking for 
sure. You not so much.

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

#607643

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 12/2/2016 6:32 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> C ways always c Reality is a photon never change speed or bounce.Nobel
>>> thinking Trebert  Ps thanks Treb
>>
>> I see you have never heard of a mirror or the propagation delay in
>> optical cable.
>>
> Treeb know Einstein, Chimp, and you didn't. He's Nobel thinking for 
> sure. You not so much.

BJ not know how to form coherent sentence.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#607989

yes, the speed of lightwaves is only dependent
upon the index of refraction of the material, like,
air is 1.0003, as I recall;
just add more zeroes, the harder you suck the air
out of the jar

> I see you have never heard of a mirror or the propagation delay in
> optical cable.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

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

#607650

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote
about his Nobel thinking that is a fraud and corruption
from top to all the way down. <snip more filthy Glazierola>
>
hanson  wrote:
Glazier, spare yourself your filthy repetitions, because
you have posted many times that you are a loser, that
you have lived for much too long and that you like bagels
 with lox & cream cheese, although you  don't know
anymore the difference between crème and the
crematorium that you will be in shortly.
>
So, Bert, before that event, which you called "back to the
oven", will happen, could you reveal the profound secret
of/in your 17 theories that made you believe so strong in
their  correctness, that you sacrificed your good name
and made you take the risk to become a Face Shitter
and a criminal Grave yard Vandal, against folks that did
not "go with you" and  prompted...

On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Swine Glazier to post & wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> - Bert
>
On 25Mar2008 the crininal Gaveyedr vandal Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh w
hen it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
So Glazier, as can be seen there must be at least two of your
17 theories involved which had the gravitas to sacrifice your
rationality and civility.
Now Glazier, be a Mensch not just a Swine and share those
wonders in your Theories as long as you still have only one
foot in your coffin... Don't take it to your grave.
>
Get the deserved fame now, while you are still twitching,
>
Glazier, answer it freely and proudly, and don't be shy or
embarrassed, for there are at least 9 other pigs that are worse
then you, namely the crowd of "Anon Y Mouse" &  8 other
Glazier-shit-eaters who laid themselves freely under the sphincter
of the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> who did
this <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
to them. Ask them, which theories were involved, if you forgot.

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

#606963

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:25:49 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.
> 
> In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.

That's not a word.

> When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it

built?

> was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
> thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.
> 
> If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!

So what was it?

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

#607017

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> 
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:25:49 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.
> >
> > In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.
> >
> > http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.
> 
> That's not a word.
> 
> > When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
> 
> built?


past and past participle of build.

cause (something) to exist or come about..


Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

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

#608221

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:25:49 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> A new proposed experiment to test Einstein's concept of the speed of light traveling at a constant rate could turn the theory of relativity on its head.
> 
> In a new study two scientists report that they believe the speed of light was actually faster right when the big bang happened than it currently is.
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/28/scientists-challenge-einsteins-theory-on-speed-of-light/21615688/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since i'm the genuies here I can verify that Einstein's speed of light has always been wrong.
> 
> When Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb he thought it
> was going to be a little bomb, ...it turn out much bigger than he
> thought because he never knew what the 'speed' of light really was.
> 
> If yous don't get these numbers right...you could blow up the whole earth!
> 
> I'll go get a ruler and measure it myself...
> 
> i don't fukin trust you guys.
> 
> You are NOT to be trusted.

Photons since the BB have never changed their speed.TreBert

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

#608239

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote
that since Bert's Beer Belly (BB) has never changed its
speed, the Full Swine and Criminal Graveyard Vandal
 <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> called
the "Mental Health Hotline" at (800) 723-8641 again
to complain to the nice lady about it. "O ya". -- LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web