Article View: sci.physics
Article #16022Re: A second "big bang"
From: Mark Folsom
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:43
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:43
66 lines
3270 bytes
3270 bytes
"Spaceman" <agentspaceman@aol.combination> wrote in message news:NjY0a.22719$SD6.1159@sccrnsc03... > > "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message news:v48jk74qn0kj55@corp.supernews.com... > > Depends on the wavelength--about 2.25e8 m/s. What does that have to do with > > the speed of light changing over time? > > Depends on the wavelength? > HA HA ! > but you SRist's alwasy say all light is the same speed no matter the wavelength. In a vacuum it's true that it's independent of wavelength. Do you have any evidence that it isn't? > <LOL> > I Got you! > You Lose! > HA HA!. Wow, what a childish idiot! > > > > Please cite your evidence that the speed of light in water changes with > > time, all else remaining equal. > > changes with time? > I never said such. Then why did you inject your bullshit into this exchange, which was about the change of the speed of light over time. > I said the speed of light is less in water than in air. Actually, I don't think you did in that last post. > and that the relative speeds create differences in wavelengths. > HENCE > no "constant" c to all. In a vacuum, it is. > > > You can measure the speed of light by watching the orbits of the moons of > > Jupiter. Is that far enough out there? > > No, > that is not "measuring light's speed" > that is "guessing" using c as lightspeed and using > distances that were measured by using c. Tell me, please, how c was used in measuring distances to the moons of Jupiter. > (circular crap as usual.). > Sorry, > you lose. > as usual. Wow, what a childish idiot! Mark Folsom
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<v48kpl4rfpokdb@corp.supernews.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<b1njmo$bsd$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> <3E3F6FB9.6020303@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> <xaK%9.26458$ZE1.557225@news1.nokia.com> <3E3F79EB.8F5B1796@nic.or.kr> <JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com> <b20u0b$pe8$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net> <v4832v16d2mu4a@corp.supernews.com> <Z9U0a.26860$vm2.12917@rwcrnsc54> <v48jk74qn0kj55@corp.supernews.com> <NjY0a.22719$SD6.1159@sccrnsc03>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10384c,830f5d0cde7d55f X-Google-Attributes: gid10384c,public X-Google-Thread: 10b271,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gid10b271,public X-Google-Thread: f74ae,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gidf74ae,public X-Google-Thread: 111645,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gid111645,public X-Google-Thread: 10f545,3df8337c8f392688 X-Google-Attributes: gid10f545,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-07 16:45:57 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.astrophysique,alt.alien.visitors Subject: Re: A second "big bang" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:43:55 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <v48kpl4rfpokdb@corp.supernews.com> Reply-To: "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigycom> References: <b1njmo$bsd$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> <3E3F6FB9.6020303@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> <xaK%9.26458$ZE1.557225@news1.nokia.com> <3E3F79EB.8F5B1796@nic.or.kr> <JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com> <b20u0b$pe8$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net> <v4832v16d2mu4a@corp.supernews.com> <Z9U0a.26860$vm2.12917@rwcrnsc54> <v48jk74qn0kj55@corp.supernews.com> <NjY0a.22719$SD6.1159@sccrnsc03> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 68