Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light

In article <4272C552.12979F06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> In article <4272A19C.20E8563D@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Uncle Al
>> <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Traveler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <4272897F.E9B82C10@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Uncle Al
>> >> <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Traveler wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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...
>> >> >
>> >> >Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>> >>
>> >> Makes no difference, fuckface. It still has to be measured, and very
>> >> carefully.
>> >
>> >Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.
>> >http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=all!
>>
>> I don't fucking care, shitface. It still had to be measured. You don't
>> get a measurement by pulling it out of your ass. Of course, light
>> speed is exact but so it the elementary charge. But, again, it had to
>> be measured. This is true whether or not some fuckface decides to
>> define it as a constant.
>>
>> The point of the thread, (before you decided to stick your head up
>> your ass) was figuring out why the speed of light is constant in all
>> reference frames. It is constant because it is an inherent part of our
>> measuring instruments. So, regardless of the actual value of c
>> relative to our FOR, we will always measure the same value. So get
>> your head out of your ass, you cretinous fool.
>
>Lightspeed is a DEFINED constant, idiot Savain. It is EXACT.

So fucking what, dickhead?

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
.