we can observe light and we know the speed of light,
Can you tell me how you are so sure of this? How do 'we know'?
Do 'we' really know?
You believe that plagiarist that goes by 'genius' and was considered a 'lesser' scientist by the scientific community of the time?
I wouldn't ;)
But of course, you are 'free' to 'believe' if you want.
Imagine what else you will believe, based on that belief! Imagine, what the world......will pursue, or not.
I wonder why this anti-european racist, plagiarist, adulterer, creep, would be worshiped so deeply, in our faces, from cradle to grave. "Genius" we are told, nay, indocrinated.
What a shifty little zionist.
What a shifty little systematic indoctrination..
Do we really 'know' the speed of light?
Have you looked into other scientists saying that the speed of light, is not even consistent?
It's too bad we didn't take this man more seriously....he was swept under the rug, his work stolen, died virtually unknown and didn't get credit for anything.
Einstein was a supreme moron compared to:
The speed of light is probably within some range of speeds between really really fast and really really really fast.
Please explain to me how personal (ad hominem) attacks change any facts.
What are you suggesting?
Are you suggesting that the speed of light is much slower than the current estimates?
Are you suggesting that the speed of light is much faster than the current estimates?
Regardless of what you think about the individuals involved, light does move at some speed, and whatever that speed is, it allows us to determine the relative distances between observable stars and the approximate age of the cosmos (current epoch at around 13 billion years).
"Probably" is what? What is that word? Doesn't sound too Factual. And that is my point.
By 'Informing' you that the lesser scientist you are basing your belief on, is a bad actor. Is that, ad hominem? It is pertinent truth. Yet, you are dismissing it and asking me questions instead.
The rest of your questions are fallacious until you at least, try to answer mine. You have not answered mine.
You do this a lot ;)
Like how this pertinent question was completely ignored:
Can you analyze your statement? Do you not see the dilemma?
It doesn't allow us to do anything but be erroneous if we are basing everything on a bogus theory.
Yes. I tried to make it clear that it doesn't matter what you personally believe "the speed of light is".
By any calculation, it's pretty darn fast.
I don't care if it's a "true constant" or not.
I'm not sure what "counter-factual" proposal you're suggesting is "the real truth".
In other words, I don't understand which fact you're actually trying to dispute here.
This is your claim.
You say it as Truth.
I am showing you that you do not know what the Truth is. No, we DO NOT know the 'speed of light'.
That was my 'proposal'.
Hopefully, it is more clear now. Please let me know if you need further clarification though. I can always use the practice :)
We can measure the speed of light.
This is well documented and easily verifiable (radio signal delay/triangulation).
The accuracy of that measurement may vary, but nobody thinks it's anything other than "really really fast".
Please explain what you mean by "speed" and "light" if you would like to propose alternative definitions.
I am a bit pressed for time so I will just link you to a source to consider, which I consider. It should answer.
"Everyone knows, or at least believes, that nothing can travel faster than light. How did this idea originate? The point to grasp is that ordinary physical objects are subject to air resistance even at relatively quite slow velocities, for example, those of bullets. It was found at the end of the nineteenth century—when vacuum technology was good enough—that submicroscopic particles travelled much faster than any normal man-made objects. So experiments on particles were necessarily confined to electrons and other emissions believed to be small particles.
The question then is: how are such particles accelerated? In some way, energy has to be put into them; and in practice this is done electronically, typically by electromagnets, as in a cyclotron. This is the only controlled way to make the things really move.
So we have a situation in which (say) a charged electron is made to accelerate by applying a charge, which is supposed to repel or attract it, depending on whether it's negative or positive. When such experiments were carried out, and relying on estimates of the mass of an electron derived from Millikan's oil drop experiment, it was found that, as more energy was put in, the electron's speed increased, but not as much as would be expected. So it must be getting heavier! And moreover the limit was the speed of light!
Sadly, there appears to be a defect in reasoning here, pointed out by Phil Holland. [Though I don't know if this argument is original with him—RW.] The point is that electromagnetic radiation itself has a velocity, namely the speed of light in the medium it's travelling in. Since energy can be transferred to an electron, presumably, only when a wave of energy catches up with it, obviously it's impossible for the electron to ever reach the speed of the wave influencing it.
If you can't see this immediately, consider these everyday models of the situation, which I've tried to make as varied as possible to get the point across.
It seems physicists, looking at electrons and measuring their speeds as they vary with energy, ignore this simple fact. They interpret the result as the particle getting heavier, with limiting speed that of light, without realising that the limit is imposed by their equipment. They assume in one part of their minds that electromagnetism travels at infinite speed."
https://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html
This is a slight oversimplification.
Nobody was trying to "set a speed limit".
SPACE = TIME = SPACETIME
Light has special properties (apparently mass-less observable particles) and it is apparently the fastest "thing" we can currently observe.
I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Yes.
So, we have a disagreement on the actual use of Ad Hominem...
Ad Hominem
Now, being that I am attacking his Claim, and I pointing out that he is a bad actor, means that I am attacking first, his claim, then, his character.
Therefore it does not qualify as 'Ad Hominem'
My opinion on him personally, does not matter, after I have attacked his claim.
And yes, his 'background', very much matters as well. I am not in the habit of believing known liars.
It matters very much what the speed of light is. It matters very much if we are being Lied to. I choose not to chase down red herrings set up for the masses to chase, while being left in the pen like a sheep.
For now, I question "light" and "speed" itself. I recommend everyone do that.
Any mention of perceived "immoral" or "unreliable" "character" (and or "ulterior motives") is an ad hominem attack.
I never mentioned the individual you specified because I don't see them as (even slightly) relevant to the discussion at hand.
What is the "truth" about "light" and "speed"?
I have no idea where you're trying to go with this.
I disagree. As I said, I attacked his CLAIM.
Then I added in other factors, which you consider to be an 'insult'. So if you deem it ad hominem, that's your prerogative, yet it doesn't counter my attack on his claim.
Or, I will accept (even against its own definition) that it was 'Justified Ad Hominem'
My claims, and my attack, was truth, relevant to the claim that I countered.
In other words, I don't care if it is an insult. The Truth is what matters.
Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
You didn't even mention any specific "claim" by this individual.
You simply spouted off about "plagiarism" and a bunch of other "moral failings".
The funny thing about ad hominem attacks is they are a DOUBLE-EDGED-SWORD.
If you really want to avoid ad hominems, you must also avoid "positive" ad hominems (praising someone's personal integrity and or "character" in order to attempt to boost the "credibility" of their claims).
I'm kind of an ad hominem purist.
Please try to present a logical claim without even mentioning the "source" of that claim.
Your identity cannot validate or invalidate your logic.