Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
These ads will disappear if you register on the forum
#41
Posted 29 October 2011 - 11:34 PM
another note you may want to consider --
For example, physicists discovered just in the last 15 years that neutrinos have mass and that they can change from one type to another. "People were very skeptical," Wojcicki said. "If you asked many respectable physicists early in the game at a comparable stage [then], they would have said it was wrong."
it is only a matter of time. soon everything you thought you knew will be wrong. me as well.
#42
Posted 29 October 2011 - 11:37 PM
http://www.thefreedi.../speed of light
the speed at which light travels in a vacuum; the constancy and universality of the speed of light is recognized by defining it to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second
Robert, the speed of light is constant and is indpedant of refraction.
#43
Posted 29 October 2011 - 11:56 PM
What are you responding to here exactly? You were referring to as 'evidence' for your opinion that light speed is a not a constant, the fact that light travels at different speeds depending on whether gravity was acting up on it or not, or whether it was interacting with a medium. I was pointing out that in the absence of either, or where the effect is negligible enough that it can be discounted, it travels at c. The video and unrequited's post elaborate on this further. So far, there is absolutely no evidence to show otherwise, versus a century of empirical data in its favour.ok in a vacuum light doesn't have to bounce around much, that has zero to do with gravity.
#44
Posted 30 October 2011 - 01:22 AM
I'm guessing you have no formal education in the matter and have the propensity to believe in things without any evidence behind them.ok in a vacuum light doesn't have to bounce around much, that has zero to do with gravity.
another note you may want to consider --
For example, physicists discovered just in the last 15 years that neutrinos have mass and that they can change from one type to another. "People were very skeptical," Wojcicki said. "If you asked many respectable physicists early in the game at a comparable stage [then], they would have said it was wrong."
it is only a matter of time. soon everything you thought you knew will be wrong. me as well.
#45
Posted 31 October 2011 - 12:47 AM
#46
Posted 31 October 2011 - 01:29 PM
#47
Posted 31 October 2011 - 07:57 PM
You gotta be fucking kidding me.if The alien greys were real, then its highly likely that theyre not aliens from a different planet/galaxy. rather, they'd be time traveling evolved humanoids of type 3 civilization.
#48
Posted 31 October 2011 - 08:38 PM
You gotta be fucking kidding me.
if The alien greys were real, then its highly likely that theyre not aliens from a different planet/galaxy. rather, they'd be time traveling evolved humanoids of type 3 civilization.
You better watch what you say about the greys!!! You don't know when they could be watching! Or is that santa?
#49
Posted 03 November 2011 - 03:11 PM
You gotta be fucking kidding me.
if The alien greys were real, then its highly likely that theyre not aliens from a different planet/galaxy. rather, they'd be time traveling evolved humanoids of type 3 civilization.
i know. oh well, this is the fictional future section.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: time travel
|
On Topic →
Science & Technology of the Future →
Cryogenic Stasis?Started by yeveat , 07 Mar 2013 |
|
|
|
|
On Topic →
In The News & Current Events →
Man from future caught at LHCStarted by Craven , 30 Nov 2011 |
|
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Sign In
Create Account
Back to top







