The speed of light is not constant (personal argument spliit)

Farsight said:
Declan, look at the dates on the Einstein quotes. He was still saying the SR postulate had to be ditched in 1916. The whole point of what I'm saying is that what you've been taught is not in accord with Einstein.

It's no false premise. Read the OP in time travel is science fiction. There is no time flowing within a clock. A clock "clocks up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows you a cumulative result that you call the time. When a clock goes slower it's because that motion goes slower.

I'm not missing it out. Think it through. Since 1983 the metre has been defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458th of a second. When your light goes slower your second is bigger. Then your slower light and your bigger second cancel each other out, and the metre is unchanged.


It isn't new. Einstein said the speed of light wasn't constant in a gravitational field.
Click to expand...

More nonsense unsupported claims.....more delusions of grandeur.
If you are fair dinkum, get it peer reviewed...SIMPLE!!
 
Let's elaborate further...
You [Farsight] are now are in three threads, BH thread, time travel and this one, and in all three you are claiming that all of science has it wrong.
The main point is that despite all your erronious ranting, all your false claims, continually being repeated, the only part of this big world you are reaching is this forum. And most here are laughing at you.
The halls of science, the administrators of NASA and other scientific bastions, the mainstream society, and even the general public, are not for one minute being taken in by your nonsense.
Do you realize this?
 
paddoboy said:
Let's elaborate further...
You [Farsight] are now are in three threads, BH thread, time travel and this one, and in all three you are claiming that all of science has it wrong.
The main point is that despite all your erronious ranting, all your false claims, continually being repeated, the only part of this big world you are reaching is this forum. And most here are laughing at you.
The halls of science, the administrators of NASA and other scientific bastions, the mainstream society, and even the general public, are not for one minute being taken in by your nonsense.
Do you realize this?
Click to expand...

WAIT! You'll eat your words four minutes in: http://www.richplanet.net/rp_genre.php?ref=7&part=1&gen=6

Maybe I'll look into crop circles next?
 
Man, I'd love for James to say how I'm being so so bad.

But Farsight might still have me on ignore. I can't feel the love.

:(
 
Farsight said:
Moderator: can we do something about trollish behaviour please.
Click to expand...

I would much rather the moderator put threads such as this in their proper forum.
This is science...You need to be in alternative theory thread at best, or pseudoscience.
 
Paddo, origin, these threads stem from the other thread requirement to break down the issues into bite sized discussion chunks. They are MAINSTREAM issues, and the discussions from ALL 'sides' and 'angles' will be instructive to all mainstreamers and amateurs alike who care to actually follow the arguments instead of kneejerking and calling for censorship etc. prejudicial agenda against the discussion being in the proper mainstream section where any views on mainstream matters UNDER DISCUSSION should and must be if any fair and open discourse is what we are all here for.
 
Undefined said:
Paddo, origin, these threads stem from the other thread requirement to break down the issues into bite sized discussion chunks. They are MAINSTREAM issues, and the discussions from ALL 'sides' and 'angles' will be instructive to all mainstreamers and amateurs alike who care to actually follow the arguments instead of kneejerking and calling for censorship etc. prejudicial agenda against the discussion being in the proper mainstream section where any views on mainstream matters UNDER DISCUSSION should and must be if any fair and open discourse is what we are all here for.
Click to expand...

You are either blind or blinkered undefined...Discussion is one thing...Absolute out right claims that the mainstream models are wrong and then present an alternative absolute claim is something else.
 
paddoboy said:
You are either blind or blinkered undefined...Discussion is one thing...Absolute out right claims that the mainstream models are wrong and then present an alternative absolute claim is something else.
Click to expand...

How can you be any judge of any of that? What qualifies you to, except the 'me too' and unargued/unsupported 'links to orthodoxy that is evolving as we speak' post you offer as 'trust me, I'm right' personal preference irrelevant statements, claims and misunderstandings of BOTH the alternative and the mainstream arguments/understandings. There is nothing there, paddo. It's hollow talk until you demonstrate some willingness to properly and fairly read and understand objectively and make your own perspective from your own supporting arguments objectively known. Until then, it's just internet noise. And taking those proven trolls 'word' on who or what other members 'are' is no way to think for yourself, even in that. Trolls like that have been known (and proven many times) to LIE because they ARE trolls and nothing more. Don't join any troll gang, mate, for your own sake. Do better, mate. :)
 
Undefined said:
How can you be any judge of any of that? What qualifies you to, except the 'me too' and unargued/unsupported 'links to orthodoxy that is evolving as we speak' post you offer as 'trust me, I'm right' personal preference irrelevant statements, claims and misunderstandings of BOTH the alternative and the mainstream arguments/understandings. There is nothing there, paddo. It's hollow talk until you demonstrate some willingness to properly and fairly read and understand objectively and make your own perspective from your own supporting arguments objectively known. Until then, it's just internet noise. And taking those proven trolls 'word' on who or what other members 'are' is no way to think for yourself, even in that. Trolls like that have been known (and proven many times) to LIE because they ARE trolls and nothing more. Don't join any troll gang, mate, for your own sake. Do better, mate. :)
Click to expand...


You mean agree with you?
More unsubstantiated claims...more unsupported drivel...more trolling.

And as two others have noted...your many word salad posts.
Stop it undefined, I'm getting a gut ache from laughing.
You actually are sounding like an old friend....yours not mine! :)

One thing I do know...
The speed of light is constant...it never changes...not even through a denser medium.
 
paddoboy said:
You mean agree with you?
More unsubstantiated claims...more unsupported drivel...more trolling.

And as two others have noted...your many word salad posts.
Stop it undefined, I'm getting a gut ache from laughing.
You actually are sounding like an old friend....yours not mine! :)

One thing I do know...
The speed of light is constant...it never changes...not even through a denser medium.
Click to expand...

What?? The points made were supported by actual objective empirically based arguments and perspective that challenges via its OWN objective merits that which you 'me too' link from orthodoxy and from the trolls who haven't anything either. What have you offered? Nothing but troll hearsay, cheerleading and 'linking to death' without any actual understanding of the new subtleties and complexities being reviewed/discussed. You haven't a clue. :)
 
Undefined said:
What?? The points made were supported by actual objective empirically based arguments and perspective that challenges via its OWN objective merits that which you 'me too' link from orthodoxy and from the trolls who haven't anything either. What have you offered? Nothing but troll hearsay, cheerleading and 'linking to death' without any actual understanding of the new subtleties and complexities being reviewed/discussed. You haven't a clue. :)
Click to expand...

No you havn't a clue...it's you arguing against the mainstream position...it's you with the delusions of grandeur, claiming to know more then NASA and other reputable people....it's you ranting and raving and casting aspersions, and then you insidiously add the little smiley.
No, it's you with the problem, and as others have noted, it's you with the continued word salad.
 
Undefined...One of us needs to be a man and cut this crap out. Obviously that won't be you.
I'm ceasing as of now from answering your lies and inuendoes.
It's all yours sonny!
 
paddoboy said:
No you havn't a clue...it's you arguing against the mainstream position...it's you with the delusions of grandeur, claiming to know more then NASA and other reputable people....it's you ranting and raving and casting aspersions, and then you insidiously add the little smiley.
No, it's you with the problem, and as others have noted, it's you with the continued word salad.
Click to expand...

Did you miss where the arguments presented stand on their own based on empirically verifiable effects/extrapolations? All you keep mouthing off is "mainstream and my preferred troll sources says this and that, so I won't think about it all for myself based on the new arguments objectively presented irrespective of source, so there!" Now I ask you, is that any way to 'do science or scientific discourse', paddo? Well, is it? Seriously. :)

PS: I just saw this, mate...
paddoboy said:
Undefined...One of us needs to be a man and cut this crap out. Obviously that won't be you.
I'm ceasing as of now from answering your lies and inuendoes.
It's all yours sonny!
Click to expand...

No worries, mate! No hard feelings, ok? Let's both agree to disagree on whatever it is you have an issue with. But I expect that objective scientific arguments should be the final arbiters on what is 'acceptable' in science, and not troll hearsay or unargued linked textbook non-answers. Deal? :)
 
Declan Lunny said:
For a defender of the mainstream and enforcer of the tested theory, you sure seem to like making up "theory" out of thin air. Everything you just said it wrong. The light isn't being absorbed and re-emitted as it passes through a lens, it is slowing down. ACTUALLY moving slower. This is not even the slightest bit controversial, it is the most basic of well established physics.
Click to expand...

And as a newbie, you need cut out the unwarranted crap....As you are now no doubt aware, I'm not making up anything out of thin air.
The view I present is supported on at least two links.
And the "pick up lines" [defender of the mainstream and enforcer of tested theory] you seem to have aquired, are those used by the 4 or 5 pushing the anti mainstream position, and naturally wallow in whatever derision they can get their paws onto.
The position I presented in the BH thread was well supported by the more intelligent on the forum, but being more wise then I, they got rather bored and tired of the continued anti mainstream crap, from at least 5 sources, and left the thread alone as it descended into chaos.
You should first study the history of the lengthy thread and you will see what I mean.

Have a good day anyway.
 
Undefined said:
Based on which clock. And compared to what? These little details are important and should be clearly identified and made allowances for when making adamant claims for a 'same speed of light' in all circumstances. Don't you think? :)
Click to expand...

Do you believe the speed of light is constant? (in vacuum, sorry)

I assumed Farsight did for the longest time, but now I see his imagination as a whimsical neurosis more than ever by discarding the idea.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top