12 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

I’m sure the rules don’t say everything over Inow’s head is excluded.

It wouldn't matter if they did. You still haven't posted any science.

For people so beholden to scientific decorum you awfully light on substantive points. Make a supposition beyond a quip and I’ll counter.

7 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Hey Bookmark, I’ll tell you what I have in common with Einstein, I quit reading other people’s work.

I think you had better start reading other people's work as you evidently have little understanding of any current research into the properties of light and of GR.

 In point of detail it was Einstein's work itself that shows the speed limit of information exchange. 

2 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

For people so beholden to scientific decorum you awfully light on substantive points. Make a supposition beyond a quip and I’ll counter.

You haven't proposed anything with any possible validity. The speed of light and information exchange has over 100 years of tests performed to validate the speed limit.

 

You haven’t contended anything. That’s a declaration.

You have to be willing to read other people's work. 

 I could literally post dozens of research papers showing the speed limit tests. However if you never read them then it's pointless

 

Edited October 5, 20196 yr by Mordred

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I think you had better start reading other people's work as you evidently have little understanding of any current research into the properties of light and of GR.

 In point of detail it was Einstein's work itself that shows the speed limit of information exchange. 

You haven't proposed anything with any possible validity. The speed of light and information exchange has over 100 years of tests performed to validate the speed limit

You still haven’t directly contented anything I’ve said, your merely emboldened by the moderator.

No I happen  to be a professional physicist with a degree of cosmology as well as particle physics.

 On point of detail one the moderators also has a PH. D in physics. 

How long have you been on this post?

How many times have you read my posts?

Simple question Doctor.

Enough times to know your wrong and that you ignored the responses of others who have giving you correct answers

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24993/testing-at-the-speed-of-light-the-state-of-us&ved=2ahUKEwi2l-XmjoXlAhV_HzQIHbs3DVU4ChAWMAB6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw1k1p5vZyZmgZ4GkrD5Sc58

Here is one test for the speed  limit.

It's also well tested using lasers

Edited October 5, 20196 yr by Mordred

Well things like that you want to take a few days with.

Provide some scientific evidence that mainstream physics that's been tested since the 16th century repeatedly is wrong concerning the speed of light

How many times did you read the laser one.

Over five times.

So what it's you that needs to start reading I'm positive you can Google the speed of light and the results will give you dozens of tests and give you the same answer in every paper.

Calm down, how many times.

That’s my writing on the fly, why would I read the congested blather of your recommendation.

That’s a contention.

14 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

“The speed of light is relative to the force of ejection from the center of origin.”

Clay, you have some weird thinking going on. 

What about the speed of sound? I was about seven years old, when I first realised that sound takes time to travel. I saw a man hitting a steel spike with a hammer about 200 metres away, but I heard the sound after I saw him hit, so I knew that sound wasn't instant from that point on. 

The speed of sound has NOTHING to do with the force of ejection, as you claim above. It's the same whatever force you use. 

You can observe that in a pond. Make waves with different force, it doesn't matter. They move at the same rate.

Sound appears to be instant, till you observe it over a distance. Light is similar, only much faster, so you need bigger distances to get a significant delay. But the fact that it seems instant to you is for the same reason that sound seems instant. It's too fast for everyday experience, that's all.

How many times have you reread that axiom.

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I was about seven years old, when I first realised that sound takes time to travel. I saw a man hitting a steel spike with a hammer about 200 metres away, but I heard the sound after I saw him hit, so I knew that sound wasn't instant from that point on. 

A similar lesson is available with lightning during storms. We see the flash then begin counting before we hear the boom, and the number we count up to helps us determine how far away the strike was. This “higher number equals farther away” relationship has thankfully helped soothe scared kids for generations...

Edited October 5, 20196 yr by iNow

O.k that’s good but I hope your realizing of the difference between an event and a constant emanation.

Wow the moderator just closed the other post I had, said I can’t bring up Ejection Theory or Deflation Theory, going to be hard it ties into this one, by the way I call it Porch Light Theory.

9 hours ago, Clay Gillespie said:

And yes it is well tested.

!

Moderator Note

Provide a link to these tests or the thread will be closed

 

Close it, won’t my time.

!

Moderator Note

Next time you start a thread, be prepared to bring some science, not just empty claims, and dial back the attitude.