The Speed of Light, is it a relative thing?

[SilverAstro]

On 10/20/2017 at 00:32, saac said:

What is the ruling engine you speak of?  Just curious.

A bit more info for curiosity   http://pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0400web/02.html

and http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/150151/view

[SilverAstro]

10 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

 

is it my browser that dont like png or did your pics go awol ?

[Delasaurus]

2 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

is it my browser that dont like png or did your pics go awol ?

What your seeing here Silver is De'Lete's phenomomnonmonmmm. Whereby the particle disappears from the Browser-Higgs field, goes across the Atlantic at the speed of light, only to return back as a duplicate particle, which in fact is the same particle twice removed. It's called Stereoerrorography and it's velocity is just under 1sec / per Slipupmetre

[saac]

6 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

What your seeing here Silver is De'Lete's phenomomnonmonmmm. Whereby the particle disappears from the Browser-Higgs field, goes across the Atlantic at the speed of light, only to return back as a duplicate particle, which in fact is the same particle twice removed. It's called Stereoerrorography and it's velocity is just under 1sec / per Slipupmetre

Nope, it's the relativistic plate tectonic effect.  

Jim

[saac]

Interesting interview with Gavin Estler (BBC political journalist/presenter) on Radio Scotland (Good Morning Scotland). He talks amongst other things about his growing concern for our public experts (scientists, medics, historians, economists) . He sees a growing trend where social media is being used by the ill-informed, irrational and those with mischievous agendas to target and undermine expert witness. Kind of relevant to part of our discussion earlier.

Jim

BBC Radio Scotland - Good Morning Scotland

[Delasaurus]

19 minutes ago, saac said:

Interesting interview with Gavin Estler (BBC political journalist/presenter) on Radio Scotland (Good Morning Scotland). He talks amongst other things about his growing concern for our public experts (scientists, medics, historians, economists) . He sees a growing trend where social medial is being used by the ill-informed, irrational and those with mischievous agendas to target and undermine expert witness. Kind of relevant to part of our discussion earlier.

Jim

BBC Radio Scotland - Good Morning Scotland

Yup, that is a very valid point. It is a great danger, as a professor that I studied with some years ago pointed out. In that whereby a professional researcher (in any discipline) would spend time learning their trade and sit at the typewriter and go to the library etc for their research, the internet would change the way in which those type of people would be invalidated with the commence of mass media.

The University debating chamber which was only open to the few select, has now been replaced by that mass media where every man and his dog can be an expert. We challenge from a distance, and as a moderator pointed out, interpreting the written word from that distance from behind our putes is difficult enough and often open to mis-interpretation.

The 'expert' as with most 'tradesmen' where skills were aquired and practiced, often through a whole lifetime have been replaced by Google.

We have no validity in the material we are reading.

The irony is I think, that more people today in our modern world, have a higher education (aka degee) than any other time in history, but the quality of the information that we receive from the internet is often very dubious.

As you say, even medicine is being replaced by software for a diagnosis, patients challenge senior consultants etc, who have spent years of study and practice.

Thank you for that, I'll have a listen.

 

[Delasaurus]

 

Thanks for the email

 

Calculation:

'So now we can calculate what is the value of the speed of light in modern units based on the value given as 2202 yojanas in 1/2 nimesa

= 2202 x 9.09 miles per 0.1056 seconds

= 20016.18 miles per 0.1056 seconds

= 189547 miles per second !!

As per the modern science speed of light is 186000 miles per second !

And so I without the slightest doubt attribute the slight difference between the two values to our error in accurately translating from (certain) units to SI/CGS units. Note that we have approximated 1 angula as exactly 3/4 inch. While the approximation is true, the angula is not exactly 3/4 inch.'

 

The maths used to do the calculation was apparently obtained from the book....