Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light

In article <xJAce.27952$WI3.17432@attbi_s71>, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>JM Albuquerque wrote:
>
>> Makes no difference, Uncle Al. It still has to be measured, and very
>> carefully.
>
> No, Albuquerque, the speed of light a physical constant of nature *is*
> a defined, not measured constant.
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html

Uncle Al must have pumped you in the ass the night before, Wormley. On
that very page you refer to, there is a link which deals with nothing
but the measurement of the speed of light over the years:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/spedlite.html

That the speed of light is defined has nothing to do with whether or
not it is measured, fuckface. The decision to define c probably had to
do with providing a practical way to standardize either the meter or
the second. This way nobody has to go to Paris or some other
standard's body to calibrate one's measuring tools. One simply has to
measure c and adjust the tools accordingly using the defined value for
c. Get a clue.

You and that fuckface, Uncle Al, are fucking stupid to an absurd
degree. Your fucking ass-kissing job is to prevent people from doing
their own thinking. Uncle Al managed to change the subject of this
thread so as to prevent people from discussing the reason why c is
measured constant in all FORs. So the stupid motherfucker sticks his
head up his ass as far as it can go and declares that c is no longer
measured. Do you assholes get paid for this ***? Dishonesty in
science is a sign of hidden vices. Are you two dickheads pedophiles by
any chance?

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