Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: they flying on 27/01/2015 14:07:52
-
Pseudo-scientist, Stuart Robbins, proved wrong – yet again – as scientists corroborate more of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information
Scientists announced that the SPEED OF LIGHT ISN'T ALWAYS CONSTANT( http://j.gs/8896051/hi) , confirming once again what UFO contactee Billy Meier said waaaaaay back in 1979:(http://j.gs/55yf)
Quetzal:
27. Now, I am actually interested in your questions and calculations.
28. Present them to us.
Billy:
Happy to do so, my son. Thus, my first question: Is the speed of light constant of presently 299,792.5 kilometers per second, which is calculated by our earthly scientists, correct?
Quetzal:
29. This figure is of correctness.
30. But I notice with your question that you speak of a present constant; what do you want to express with that?
Billy: I have calculated that the light constant steadily decreases within the framework of a certain half-life.
NOTE:
The above information is ironclad, i.e. verifiably published long prior to the “new official discovery”. This prior, copyrighted, online publication alone constitutes a legalstandard of proof. Meier’s original publication preempts our scientists by a mere…36 years.
Wendelle Stevens referred to Meier knowing this information EVEN EARLIER:(
“First of all, the ETs do not measure distance in terms of light-years because that is our unique creation. They say the speed of light is neither constant nor does it travel in a straight line (except over very small distances) — being speeded up and slowed down, and bent every which way by magnetic fields of force, which are everywhere.”
About this time, one particular pseudo-scientist might just be feeling kinda pStupid. That’s right, skeptic Stuart Robbins*, the know-it-all and shill for the party line who unambiguously declared Billy Meier to be a hoaxer, fraud, etc., when earlier provided with Meier’s information about the speed of light. He dismissed it as wrong because it hadn’t yet been proved by terrestrial scientists.
Robbins of course will probably now resort to attacking the article itself but I doubt that he’ll attack the CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ( http://j.gs/55yk) for posting the research report. Then again…maybe he will.
Traitors to the Truth
Now, in light of yet another corroboration of Billy Meier’s specific, voluminous, PROPHETICALLY ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION:( http://j.gs/55yq) does my including Robbins on my “TRAITORS TO THE TRUTH" category really so sound so harsh? Think what’s at stake here as these poseurs and sold out know-it-alls suppress and attack the Meier case. Meier, the same man who has tried FOR DECADES( http://j.gs/55yr) ** to warn us away from the dead-end path of self-destruction that we, in our moth-to-the-flame, suicidal, religiously deluded, overly entertained, ignorance and arrogance passionately pursue in our own hell-bent, lovable little ways.
Contact 251
According to Mariann Uehlinger, another prediction that has fulfilled as well is sentence 197 of contact 251, from February 3, 1995. The movement of complete Gewaltlosigkeit (non-violence) is http://www.nonviolence.com, the “Gruppierung” (another group) is the EU and the woman who will reach a powerful Weltmachtstellung (world might position) is Angela Merkel from Germany.
(These references are to this information in our unnumbered ENGLISH VERSION(http://j.gs/55yw) : “Initial efforts are being made by a new movement to promote total non-violence; while a woman gains a high and influential position among world powers through another group’s formation.”)
*For more about Stuart Robbins’ Greatest Hits, er, Misses, start with my unfortunately overly-optimistic, first blog about him:
STARS IN HIS EYES( http://j.gs/55yy)
Then use the TheyFlyBlog Search for about 10 pages of more information about just how wrong Robbins and the rest of the skeptics can be…at humanity’s expense.
-
You know that you're spamming, don't you?
Twice now.
We don't need any cults.
-
dont you get it he right. NOT LEFT .HAHAHA [:o]
-
Pseudo-scientist, Stuart Robbins, proved wrong – yet again – as scientists corroborate more of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information
Scientists announced that the SPEED OF LIGHT ISN'T ALWAYS CONSTANT( http://j.gs/8896051/hi) , confirming once again what UFO contactee Billy Meier said waaaaaay back in 1979:(http://j.gs/55yf)
One of the trademarks of a poor scientist is the trait where they automatically assume that every single paper approved for publication is correct. Bad physics!! It takes a good deal of study to make sure that the person who did the original research didn't make any mistake, and that the results can be, and are reproduced.
However there is nothing new about this. It's a well known fact that EM waves can travel at other speeds than c the speed of light in a vacuum. This is nothing but a limit. And this particular speed is invariant. I was just reading this in an EM text the other day so this isn't really new to me. The paper is about phase velocity and group velocity of light.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity
The phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation may – under certain circumstances (for example anomalous dispersion) – exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but this does not indicate any superluminal information or energy transfer. It was theoretically described by physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Léon Brillouin.
The speed of light in a vacuum, c = 3x108 m/s is invariant, i.e. has the same speed in all frames of reference. That is the second principle of relativity, i.e. that c is invariant. It does not say that c always has the same value.
The problem with both you and the crackpot you quoted is the lack of understanding of physics you both have.
Einstein is still safe.
-
The problem with both you and the crackpot you quoted is the lack of understanding of physics you both have.
Einstein is still safe.
The poster obviously doesn't understand the difference between the Padgett team experiment he quotes and the quote from Meier. He also declares that Meier's writing is a priori evidence of 1st publication (of variability of light speed I assume), so he is clearly unaware of Einstein's own writings on this subject in 1907 which far predates Meier's birth. Similarly the comment that light doesn't always travel in a straight line was covered by Einstein before Meier's birth.
Although Meier was outed by his wife who claimed he had faked the ufo photos, he could easily have read of Einstein's work and might have thought he was in some way supporting it.
Given the number of books he sold he was certainly a lot smarter than his acolytes
-
The poster obviously doesn't understand the difference between the Padgett team experiment he quotes and the quote from Meier. He also declares that Meier's writing is a priori evidence of 1st publication (of variability of light speed I assume), so he is clearly unaware of Einstein's own writings on this subject in 1907 which far predates Meier's birth. Similarly the comment that light doesn't always travel in a straight line was covered by Einstein before Meier's birth.
Although Meier was outed by his wife who claimed he had faked the ufo photos, he could easily have read of Einstein's work and might have thought he was in some way supporting it.
Given the number of books he sold he was certainly a lot smarter than his acolytes
Why don't these people actually read something about science or physics such as books on the philosophy of physics or a text on the theory or special relativity?
-
Why don't these people actually read something about science or physics such as books on the philosophy of physics or a text on the theory or special relativity?
I can accept there are those who don't have the mental capacity, but there are others who should have it and are clearly either lazy or choose not to know.
Example is the guy on the Apollo thread you gave the reading list to. I can't believe he's fallen for the 'flag' one. Doesn't seem to realise we are all bored by having to explain basic physics, but he is too lazy to read any of the texts or even to look up the various sites which offer a critique. I'm surprised he can't work out the flag on his own, just wants to be spoon fed, or really doesn't want to know the truth.
-
Example is the guy on the Apollo thread you gave the reading list to. I can't believe he's fallen for the 'flag' one.
I don't understand. What does "the 'flag' one" mean?
Doesn't seem to realise we are all bored by having to explain basic physics, but he is too lazy to read any of the texts or even to look up the various sites which offer a critique. I'm surprised he can't work out the flag on his own, just wants to be spoon fed, or really doesn't want to know the truth.
Sounds right. :)
-
I don't understand. What does "the 'flag' one" mean?
Sorry, rather a rush that last post so bit incoherent.
There are a couple of Apollo denials which go way back, the 'flag waving' and 'wot no stars'. As someone with a deep interest in photography and sailing the answers to these seem very obvious to me.
Without going into full detail, in some Apollo footage the flag planted on the moon is waving while the astronauts are touching it, and for a short period just after, conspirators see this as a wind effect. Some people. claim to see it moving in the still photos, but we'll ignore them and wonder what they are smoking!!
To me the motion of the flag is one of the biggest indicators that the footage is in vacuum. When you are sailing you needed to be constantly aware of the wind and how it is moving the sail and indicators like flags. When I look at the Apollo footage I see a flag that is not as well damped as you would expect on earth. There are none of the characteristic signs of eddies and back winding that are typical of a flag waving in air, and the pendulum effect at the free edges and point is too pronounced, basically the motion is just inertia/momentum with no air damping. Momentum allowed it to oscillate after the astronauts left, but this is a very short period. Some claim the Apollo films were made on earth and then slowed down, but I've seen them speeded up and the flag motion still looks totally wrong for earth. This is just a very rough summary of one video, there is a lot of material on the web about the specific videos and debunking the conspiracy hoaxers. An American TV programme called Mythbusters took a flag into a vacuum chamber to prove the Apollo footage was taken in a vacuum.
The main problem talking to conspiracy believers is lack of understanding of basic science. The lack of stars in photos requires explaining film sensitivity, contrast ratios, exposure, diffusion of light in atmosphere, etc.
Even their so called experts have little understanding. One was trying to question the lunar orbit times so it would be a better fit with his theory. He calculated: it takes av 90 min to complete an Earth orbit, earth dia is 7900 miles, moon dia is 2160 miles, so one Moon orbit should take 25 min!! With this level of misunderstanding it is no wonder that we have conspiracy theories.
This is posted for yourself and your question. I don't intend to answer posts from any conspiracy theorists as they need to learn some physics and look up the websites for themselves, rather than waste other peoples time.
-
There are a couple of Apollo denials which go way back, the 'flag waving' and 'wot no stars'. As someone with a deep interest in photography and sailing the answers to these seem very obvious to me.
I was thinking about this yesterday and it occurred to me just how pathetic this claim was. Do people actually believe that the government hired people so stupid that they'd film this in a place where there is wind? Did they film this outside while it was windy and didn't analyze the film for accuracy before they gave it to the media? Lol!