This is a thread for Zanket to defend his position that:

c is not defined as the speed of light.

However, we've already seen that Zanket considers c to be:

the definition of c is 299792458 meters per second

Why are you so upset at zanket's point of view?
Are you here to learn, or to be argumentative?

Why are you so upset at zanket's point of view?
Are you here to learn, or to be argumentative? If there was anything to learn from his paper, I would support it and him. I made very simple and easy to understand arguments against his paper and he dismissed them unequivocally without showing my disproof was flawed in any way. He only wants to entertain peoples thoughts who share agreement with him. This is very unscientific. If I came up with a theory disproving any part of a currently excepted theory, I would want someone to show where it was wrong. I don't accept that just because I came up with something that I am right. Zanket shows contempt for science.

MY apologies...I just read the thread you refer to and have placed this thread in context.....and deleted my earlier post

If there was anything to learn from his paper...
I see!
Looks like a halo effect. You disagree with something zanket says, you feel contempt for his worldview, and you therefore feel obliged to disagree with everything he says.

I can see why that would be upsetting. I'll leave you to it.

If I came up with a theory disproving any part of a currently excepted theory, I would want someone to show where it was wrong.

I do want that. You mistake my not agreeing with you for my being closed minded. I considered and rejected, with reasoning I gave you, all your non-formatting issues, like your claim that a "light year" is nonsensical in Newtonian mechanics. If you think I missed one, please restate it clearly in the thread about the paper. A lot of your posts are confusing to me because they have stuff unrelated to the point you seem to be making. You tend to copy and paste a lot of my stuff into them and then don't refer to it.

This thread is unnecessary I think. The other thread, titled "Question about a light year in Newtonian mechanics," is already closely related. There's no need to mention my paper in either thread.

There's no need to mention my paper in either thread.
BS. My points are directly related to your paper and your paper only!

You can make them without referring to it. Just build a point around an example of what I'm doing in the paper that you take issue with. And don't misquote me.

You can make them without referring to it. Just build a point around an example of what I'm doing in the paper that you take issue with. And don't misquote me.I try to only copy and paste things you say as they are so asinine that I wouldn't want to imbed them into my mind by storing them for the short amount of time it takes to retype.

Apparantly you don't want anyone to look at your paper any more. Why not just take it down?

zanket,

Do you want to answer the initial claim of this thread: do you think that c is the speed of light?

If not, I'll close the thread, since I can't see it going anywhere useful at this stage.

It was answered at length in the other thread I mention above. So you can close, thanks.

It was answered at length in the other thread I mention above. So you can close, thanks. Hah! This issue was never answered, however I don't have any problem with the thread being closed.