John Cuthber Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 For people so beholden to scientific decorum you awfully light on substantive points. Make a supposition beyond a quip and I’ll counter. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 You haven’t contended anything. That’s a declaration. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 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, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 How long have you been on this post? How many times have you read my posts? Simple question Doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 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, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 Well things like that you want to take a few days with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 Provide some scientific evidence that mainstream physics that's been tested since the 16th century repeatedly is wrong concerning the speed of light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 How many times did you read the laser one. Over five times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 How many times have you reread that axiom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 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, 2019 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 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. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Gillespie Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 Close it, won’t my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 ! Moderator Note Next time you start a thread, be prepared to bring some science, not just empty claims, and dial back the attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts