Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light

In article <Pjvce.1249$BE3.647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"hanson" <hanson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:42726F8B.1FF1D866@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >Weiv wrote:
>>> >> The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
>>> >[snip lines of ignorant crap]
>>> >
>>> In article <4272590C.A30935FC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Uncle Al
>>> <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >Hey fuckwad, c = 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
>>>
>> Traveler wrote:
>>> The problem is, you ***-sucking sack of ***, is that measuring c is
>>> like using a ruler to measure itself. Whether or not the ruler expands
>>> or shrinks makes not difference: it's always the same result. Why?
>>> Because c is an inherent part of the mechanism used by our measuring
>>> instruments. Don't you dare deny this, fuckface.
>> [snip crap]
>>
>[Al]
>> Lightspeed is a defined constant. No measurement.
>> DING!!! Savain DING!!!
>>
>[hanson]
>No measurement for c? ........
>657,000 google hits for / Measuring the Velocity of Light /
>2,620,000 google hits for / Measuring Light speed. /
>Mucho, mucho DINGs, Al .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... but,
>No, Zero, Silch, 0 google hits for "Lightspeed is a defined constant"
>DING!!!, DING!!!, DING???... or what?
>ahaha... ahahanson

Maybe Uncle Al should be forgiven if only out of pity. He's been
running a chicken-*** con game for so long, he's beginning to lose
his marbles now the con game is about to come to an abrupt end. ....
ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

Quantcast