Made it, Ma!

Top of the thread!

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Basically you might have been gone for a year,
> but
> > only felt like it was a month.
>
>
> If you were gone for a year at light-speed, it
> would have felt like a year. Everything in your
> frame of reference would've felt normal. Your
> clock would tick normal seconds, your heart would
> be beat normally, etc. You would have perceived
> one year passing.
>
> But when you came back to earth, you would notice
> that earth clocks were moving much faster than
> yours while you were gone. You were gone for a
> year, while many years passed on earth.


Absolutely. Somebody gets it.

If you were on a space ship going just under the speed of light you would not notice anything different, the clock would not slow down, you would not stop aging ect... This theory is for someone from the outside looking at the situation and putting it into perspective.

A example- not all but some of the stars you see flickering in the night sky no longer exist, they burt out billions of years ago if not longer and have probably turned into a black hole. As we see it to our best knowledge it is there becasue we are looking into the past. If we could hypothetically build a craft to instantaniously go to the burnt out star we would in theory travel back in time brreaking the laws of physics and see the star while it was still "alive". Back on earth time would still be at its regular pace but from the prospective of the craft earth would be billions of years younger.

also when you return to earth for the star and go light speed you would return to earth a billion years later.

light speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you were on a space ship going just under the
> speed of light you would not notice anything
> different, the clock would not slow down, you
> would not stop aging ect... This theory is for
> someone from the outside looking at the situation
> and putting it into perspective.
>
> A example- not all but some of the stars you see
> flickering in the night sky no longer exist, they
> burt out billions of years ago if not longer and
> have probably turned into a black hole. As we see
> it to our best knowledge it is there becasue we
> are looking into the past. If we could
> hypothetically build a craft to instantaniously
> go to the burnt out star we would in theory travel
> back in time brreaking the laws of physics and see
> the star while it was still "alive". Back on earth
> time would still be at its regular pace but from
> the prospective of the craft earth would be
> billions of years younger.


Absolutely. Somebody gets it.

*** stupidest post EVER! ^ ^ ^

my favorites:

'burt out'
&
'as we can see it to our best knowledge it IS there because we are looking into the past.'


Ladies
and Gentlemen,

BEHOLD!
Here we have our infamous FFxU self conversating, co-signer. V v v

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2010 09:47PM by Troll@AOL.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *** stupidest post EVER! ^ ^ ^
>
> my favorites:
>
> 'burt out'
> &
> 'as we can see it to our best knowledge it IS
> there because we are looking into the past.'

Sorry troll I typed it up kinda fast so a complete moron such as yourself could understand it, everything has to be dumbed down for you.

Don't worry I see dumb, just lQQk --- ^ ^ ^

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

LMFAO!!!

Troll@AOL is PWND AGIN!!

GAY, like your daddy.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all I think you would have to create your
> own gravitational field INSIDE the space craft, or
> your body might not be able to handle
> acceleration/ deceleration. Also we could not
> percieve anything at the speed of light, due to
> physical limitations of the eye.
>
> Time travel to me involves traveling faster than
> the plane of our time will contain. Essentially
> breaking through or creating a rift in the fabric
> of time. This also might involve transfering to a
> similar PARALEL DIMENSION, that is similar in
> appearance to ours.
>
> near- light speed travel effect of slowing down
> the clocks might be due to the intertia/ sheer
> forces of traveling at such speeds acting as would
> friction from wind on a car.


This is a good one. Are you retarded? Space is a vacuum you dont have the affects of gravity you moron. you would need a gravatational field inside the spacecraft? Again only if you are dealing with gravity idiot. Damn son you are stupid. Read what you wrote.

But my favorite is this-

> near- light speed travel effect of slowing down
> the clocks might be due to the intertia/ sheer
> forces of traveling at such speeds acting as would
> friction from wind on a car.

Let me ask you troll is their air in space that would create friction? No there is not again you are a moron

- SBS - Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Absolutely. Somebody gets it.

Wow, just wow! How big of a headache did you get trying to come up with this original troll idea?

troll I think you are a funny guy but on this one I suggest you back off or I will tear you up on everything you said and make you look like a dumb f-ing retard.

GAYEST/ most RETARDED post EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^ ^ ^

I was saying the reduction of all the effects that have to do with aging that constantly act on and affect your physical body for example:

Gravity of the earth and fields and UV light ect ect.

Oh and jeanyuss, notice I said ACTING AS WOULD, good God, boy YOU CAN'T even READ!

And you tell me to reread whay I wrote huh?
FUNNY!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravity of the earth and fields for that matter.
>
>
> Oh and jeanyuss, notice I said ACTING AS WOULD,
> good God, boy YOU CAN'T even READ!
>
> And you tell me to reread whay I wrote huh?
> FUNNY!
>
>
> .


Acting as--- If you knew shit you would know that there is nothing in space, get it? It is a vacuum do you know what a vacuum is? You would not have said that unless you did not know and you didn't. I bet your dumb ass thinks you can stick you head out od a space ship and breath air dont you?

Enjoy talking to yourself, loser.

Good evening.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enjoy talking to yourself, loser.
>
> Good evening.
>
>
> .


Sorry for making you look like a dumb person.

light speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet your dumb ass thinks you can stick you head
> out od a space ship and breath air dont you?


But before I sign off for the night, I might just point out that it's entirely possible that I could EVOLVE to point of breathing "space air" in the same way that fish have evolved to breathe "water air."

Right? RIGHT??

ALSO, what if the space ship was in FLORIDA?? (Where most space ships actually ARE, by the way.)

Wouldn't have such a hard time breathing air then, would I, dumbass!

edit by Cary: USER BANNED, IMPERSONATION PROHIBITED: Fios Troll #1. Account locked.

light speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry for making you look like a dumb person.

In this case, it wasn't too difficult.

here you go troll. We will start from the beginning for you "WHY ASTRONAUTS FLOAT IN SPACE" As you get smarter I will put a diffrent video on this thread everytime you have completed a test from other users. I know once you have mastered the basic principles of space we will get into more advanced videos and one day you will understand! Then you will be able to criticize what others say

Troll@A0L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> light speed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I bet your dumb ass thinks you can stick you
> head
> > out of a space ship and breath air dont you?
>
>
> But before I sign off for the night, I might just
> point out that it's entirely possible that I could
> EVOLVE to point of breathing "space air" in the
> same way that fish have evolved to breathe "water
> air."
>

Again, there is no sort of air in space little one. What would you breath in space if it is a vacuum? Oh I know troll thinks he can evolve and breath LIGHT.

HA HA HA HA

I know he just got his ass kicked so bad on this thread he will never return.

If I was going sufficiently fast, one breath of air on earth would last me for a MILLION YEARS.

Chew that one over while you're lamely fantasizing about "brreaking" the laws of physics........................DUMBASS.

TroII@A0L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I was going sufficiently fast, one breath of
> air on earth would last me for a MILLION YEARS.
>
> Chew that one over while you're lamely fantasizing
> about "brreaking" the laws of
> physics........................DUMBASS.

You still dont get it do you? Time would stay the same for YOU if you were going sufficiently fast. How would it last you a million years? You are just about the dumbest person on this planet. Please stop posting becasue the further you go along the dumber you sound. It's like your IQ is traveling back in time. WoW I better not bring up back in time to you becasue you still dont grasp the concept

He just came back for a murdering.... Troll@AOL is PWND again!!!

"How would it last you a million years?"

Because this discussion rests on the foundation of quantifying YOUR stupidity, which is, admittedly, a challenging task, not unlike counting the grains of sand on the seashore.

With that in mind, then, it follows - to all but the dumbest of dumbasses, which, woops, I do seem to be talking to! - that from the perspective of YOUR inertial frame observing MY frame -- yes, that single breath of air could last a million years!

Or am I talking to fast for you?

Apparently so.

Anyways, come back when you've passed Physics 101; and since, by EVERY indication, that's NOT going to happen, just don't bother coming back at all.

Because you are a BLACK HOLE of STUPID who has sucked every drop of intelligence from this thread and replaced it with nothing but the broken-toothed guffaw of a backwoods hillbilly IDIOT.

TroII@A0L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "How would it last you a million years?"
>
> Because this discussion rests on the foundation of
> quantifying YOUR stupidity, which is, admittedly,
> a challenging task, not unlike counting the grains
> of sand on the seashore.
>
> With that in mind, then, it follows - to all but
> the dumbest of dumbasses, which, woops, I do seem
> to be talking to! - that from the perspective of
> YOUR inertial frame observing MY frame -- yes,
> that single breath of air could last a million
> years!
>
> Or am I talking to fast for you?
>
> Apparently so.
>
> Anyways, come back when you've passed Physics 101;
> and since, by EVERY indication, that's NOT going
> to happen, just don't bother coming back at all.
>
> Because you are a BLACK HOLE of STUPID who has
> sucked every drop of intelligence from this thread
> and replaced it with nothing but the
> broken-toothed guffaw of a backwoods hillbilly
> IDIOT.

Epic fail again- look, you got beat up just walk away.

Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 04:10PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

They should parachute his ass onto the Predator Planet.


Trailer

Mr. Meph wrote:
"There is no such thing as time. It's an arbitrary human concept"

That is correct, the proper way to frame it is that time does not exist because to exist is to be in the absolute now and the absolute now can never be measured therefore time does not exist.

time is how long it takes for a fart to get across the room.

> "There is no such thing as time.

The sun is the same, in a relative way, but you're older.

"light speed", this is an FYI for you.

There are 2 "Trolls"@AOL.

Look carefully at the AOL part. 1 is Troll@AOL, the other is Troll@A0L - as in "A zero L"

The A-zero-L Troll was was trying to make the other AOL Troll look dumb after his last post at 9:58pm last night.

Just letting you know.

"light speed," here's the real information.

There ARE 2 registered "Trolls"@AOL, but BOTH names were registered by the SAME person - NOT two different people - for trollish kicks and lulz, presumably (or possibly schizophrenia, or could just be a perception thing, Rashomon, parallel universe, whatever).

Just letting u no.

From what I have read both of their personalitys took a spanking from light speed.

From what I read, both trolls trolled light speed every which way but loose.

The only possible exception is if light speed was trolling the trolls, i.e.,
writing DELIBERATELY - rather than INADVERTENTLY - STUPID SHIT like the
following:

light speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A example- not all but some of the stars you see
> flickering in the night sky no longer exist, they
> burt out billions of years ago if not longer and
> have probably turned into a black hole. As we see
> it to our best knowledge it is there becasue we
> are looking into the past. If we could
> hypothetically build a craft to instantaniously
> go to the burnt out star we would in theory travel
> back in time brreaking the laws of physics and see
> the star while it was still "alive". Back on earth
> time would still be at its regular pace but from
> the prospective of the craft earth would be
> billions of years younger.


The above paragraph being one of stupidest blocks of text posted on FU EVAH!
Which is really saying something!

huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really get it either, and don't think
> anyone has really explained it here. Like
> travelling to CA, by walking, biking, by plane,
> etc. -- your're moving faster so you just get
> there faster, but time itself didn't accelerate or
> slow down.
>
> It takes 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to
> reach Earth, so that light is 8 minutes old.
>
> So if I travel at light-speed to the Sun and back,
> it would take 16 minutes. If I took a clock with
> me, it would show that 16 minutes had passed.
>
> For someone on Earth, I would have been gone for
> 16 minutes.
>
> So I have never been able to grasp the Theory
> either.


OK, I read all the stuff posted, and here are a few things I see wrong:

Someone Posted that my "journey" to the Sun and Back at light speed would only take 2 minutes -- THAT IS FALSE!!! It takes 8 minutes, each way at light speed, whether on Earth or in Space.

Someone else Posted about the Cesium clocks used to prove this. I checked that out, and the the Cesium particles slow down in the air or in space -- THAT IS CORRECT, BUT, that pertains to Cesium Particles, not "Time" as mescured by a clock. There was no reference to them using a wind-up watch, nor digital clock, only that the Cesium Particles slowed down, whcihc makes sense as Particles of any type may slow or speed up when there is less Gravity.

Someone else Posted about Black Holes: This isn't the discussion here, it is about "Time", Not Black Holes or Worm Holes.

Someone else posted about going faste then light to go back in time: That isn't the discussion either.

Several of you posted about Gravity and Gases -- I'll get to that at the end.

And others posted about Orbits -- I'll get to that at the end too.

The real Troll@AOL did ask and fight, the fake Troll@A0L (A-Zero-L) continued last night to make the real Troll look dumb, but I don't think the real one was, he asked good questions.

Here is the thing that get's me: I takes 8 Minutes at Light Speed for the Sun Light to reach Earth. This is FACT.

Now, IF I'm on Earth, it takes 8 minutes.

If I'm in Space, It takes 8 minutes.

NO DIFFERENCE.

I checked the links you all provided, and Thanks, but Not One ever Really answered the Question. The Only thing I got form those was that they tried an experiment with Cesium Clocks and the Particles slowed down, so that in itself proved Nothing.

Simple Example for Particles: Water. I flows out of your tap, in creeks, strems, rivers... In a Flood, more Volume makes it move Faster (is there more Volume in Space? Yes and No), but when Water Particles slow down the Freeze and are Ice. You can walk on it, yet when it is warmer, and liquid water, you get wet. So Cesium basically did the same in the tests, it slowed down, but why?

Gravity and Gases: I forget who posted it, and am too lazy to finger somone on that, but YOU are wrong. Gravity DOES effect Gases. This is why we have Oxygen and Nitrogen, and more, on Earth. And as another Poster pointed out, the Gas Giant of Jupiter. -- Gravity can bend light, so obviously a gas, which has mass, would be affected.

Orbits: An Orbit is this: Our Earth is constantly falling toward the Sun due to the Gravitation pull. Yet, the speed that our planet moves, keeps it from falling directly into the Sun, to we continue to "Fall" around the Sun, as do all the planets. And as our Moon "Falls" toward Earth, yet orbits it.

More: The Moon, for some odd reason is actually slowly pulling away from Earth, this could be the Sun's Gravity or another Planet, but most ikely the Sun. The Earth is actually slowly moving closer to the Sun, but only by inches over many years.

-----------------------------------------

Sorry, got Off-Topic there, but just wanted to answer some thing folks posted.

Again tho, Einstein's Theory cannot be proven.

Cesium Particles slowed down, that doesn't Prove it.

The Mathmatical Formulas don't either since no-one haas tried (or could try) that right now.
--------------------------------------------

The Facts:

8 minutes at light speed for me to go from the Sun to Earth.

It does NOT matter if I'm in Space, or on Earth.

The Speed of Light is Constant -- as someone pointed out -- So 8 Minutes on Earth is 8 Minutes at the Speed of Light.


Also, somone posted that Astronauts have to re-calculate or adjust their Clocks on the Space Station. BS, Only if thier clock failed would they need to reset it.

I also liked the Poster that stated something about going 95mph in a 55mph zone.

Time, tho "man-made" (but not really, see next) doesn't change. -- God said to Name the Days, and Hours, and Months, and Seasons... and so we did.

The REAL FYI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "light speed," here's the real information.
>
> There ARE 2 registered "Trolls"@AOL, but BOTH
> names were registered by the SAME person - NOT two
> different people - for trollish kicks and lulz,
> presumably (or possibly schizophrenia, or could
> just be a perception thing, Rashomon, parallel
> universe, whatever).
>
> Just letting u no.

Oops!!! Sorry, didn't know they were actually the same. My Bad.

Huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Speed of Light is Constant -- as someone
> pointed out -- So 8 Minutes on Earth is 8 Minutes
> at the Speed of Light.


That's why I said yesterday-- the "light clock" experiment at the end of that video is the best example for understanding time dilation.

The speed of light is constant for all frames of reference, no matter how fast they are moving.

If we're both in the same frame of reference, we both see a photon move the same distance in the same amount of time. Dividing those two values (distance and time), give us one rate (i.e. the speed of light). We both saw the same thing, so we agree.

But suppose I'm moving really fast and you are stationary. We'd measure two DIFFERENT distances. The photon I'm looking at in my frame of reference is traveling 10 feet, for example. But since you are watching me (my frame of reference) move really fast, that photon would look like it's traveling, let's say 500 feet.

But the speed of light is a constant.

I saw that photon travel 10 feet (d) in 't' number of seconds. Therefore I can say that the speed of light(c) is d/t.

But I was moving fast compared to you. So you saw the photon travel 500 feet(d). Therefore you would say that the speed of light is 500d/t.

That doesn't make sense. c (the speed of that photon) is ALWAYS constant. The only way to solve that equation would be for you to increase the value of 't'.

Time = t

Your time needs to be greater than the 't' I measured in MY fast-moving frame of reference.

The event I measured took one second to happen. And because (c),the speed of light, is constant, your (t) measurement must be larger. A longer period of time.

i.e. Time dilation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2010 09:36PM by TheMeeper.

Light can be bent AND slowed down and manipulated in other ways. There is nothing 'constant' about light.

And that was a half assed explanation for your half assed assertion, 'The Meeper'.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Light can be bent AND slowed down and manipulated
> in other ways. There is nothing 'constant' about
> light.
>
> And that was a half assed explanation for your
> half assed assertion, 'The Meeper'.
>
>
> .

Over in germany they stoped light for a split second and also slowed it down to 10 meters a second

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Light can be bent AND slowed down and manipulated
> in other ways. There is nothing 'constant' about
> light.

Light is never "slowed" down. "Special Relativity" explains that.

"Bent" light? Absolutely. Light "bends" around mass.

Twenty years after 'special relativity', Einstein published GENERAL RELATIVITY, which perfectly explains "bending light" (i.e. gravity, the concept of space-time).

If there's really nothing constant about the speed of light, I'd like you to show everyone the experiment where things have traveled faster than light speed. Even if the experiment failed, let's hear methods.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Light can be bent AND slowed down and
> manipulated
> > in other ways. There is nothing 'constant'
> about
> > light.
>
> Light is never "slowed" down. "Special
> Relativity" explains that.
>
> "Bent" light? Absolutely. Light "bends" around
> mass.
>
> Twenty years after 'special relativity', Einstein
> published GENERAL RELATIVITY, which perfectly
> explains "bending light" (i.e. gravity, the
> concept of space-time).
>
> If there's really nothing constant about the speed
> of light, I'd like you to show everyone the
> experiment where things have traveled faster than
> light speed. Even if the experiment failed, let's
> hear methods.


Light slows down read this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3308109.stm

Okay

Let's say light travels from point A to point B in 1 sec.
It is safe to say that if the light is bent, it is slowed down due to the longer path it must travel to get to point B
It would also be safe to say that the bending of the light, slowed the lights speed down due to resistance, just like going around a turn, or bend in the road while driving a car.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay
>
> Let's say light travels from point A to point B in
> 1 sec.
> It is safe to say that if the light is bent, it is
> slowed down due to the longer path it must travel
> to get to point B
> It would also be safe to say that the bending of
> the light, slowed the lights speed down due to
> resistance, just like going around a turn, or bend
> in the road while driving a car.


Damn yet another stupid post by you. There is no resistance against light in space. God damn it troll is there a steaming pile of crap between your ears you and your slutty mom call a brain.

Who said anything about SPACE?
LEARN to READ.

I was refering to resistance due to a medium used to bend light.

Now go back to the STEAMING PILE OF CRAP you call YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT.
RETARD.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2010 10:40PM by Troll@AOL.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello again anon user 'special ed',
>
> Who said anything about SPACE?
> LEARN to READ boy.
>
> I was refering to resistance due to a medium used
> to bend light.
>
> Now go back to the STEAMING PILE OF CRAP you call
> YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT.
> RETARD.
>
>
> .


what you said makes no sence, learn to write.. Gotta go, your mom is comming over. =:()

Oh okay, sorry to disturb the two of you.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let's say light travels from point A to point B in
> 1 sec.
> It is safe to say that if the light is bent, it is
> slowed down due to the longer path it must travel to get to point B

Light traveling thru a vacuum doesn't bend unless it's being pulled by gravity. Gravity is the curvature of space. The light is traveling a straight path at a constant speed through curved space. It's not slowing down.

Light doesn't bend itself.

Space is NOT curved.

Gravity affecting light or the 'bending of space' , theoretically may affect the lights speed. Even if ever so slightly.

How do you know light traveling through space is not affected by anything else but gravity? How do we know there is not an anti light? Or a nomadic gas in space that affects light when it passes through it? What about the deterioration of light?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Space is NOT curved.

Yes, it is.


> Gravity affecting light or the 'bending of space'
> , theoretically may affect the lights speed.

No, it doesn't.

> How do you know light traveling through space is
> not affected by anything else but gravity?

It's affected by pretty much everything it comes in contact with. That's not part of my explanation though. It's easier to understand if you describe it in a vacuum. There's no reason to add more stuff in the way.


> How do
> we know there is not an anti light?

By way of quantum mechanics we know there is no "anti-photon". A photon is it's own antiparticle.

> Or a nomadic gas in space that affects light when it passes
> through it?

What the heck is a 'nomadic gas'? Space is filled with gases, all of which "affect" light.

> What about the deterioration of
> light?

What are you talking about?

Meeper wrote:
>Space is filled with gases, all of which "affect" light.

Thank you, so light is not a constant because there are elements that act upon it.

The End.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you, so light is not a constant because
> there are elements that act upon it

Umm, you have to understand how light propagates. Matter is not slowing down the speed of light.

Let's say I shoot a single proton toward you. In between us is a plate of glass. This proton will enter the glass, hit an atom, and be absorbed into that atom. My photon no longer exists. This atom jumps into an excited state for a brief moment, then jumps back down to it's normal state, and releases a photon. This new photon, traveling the speed of light, hits another atom. That atom gets excited, then releases a new photon. This process repeats itself a few trillion times until a photon reaches your eye.

But you're not seeing the same proton I fired.

So yes, matter interferes with light. But light speed still remains constant and doesn't slow down. Light might not propagate thru material at a constant rate. But those photons all move at the speed of light, which never slowed down during this scenario.

Meeper wrote:
>So yes, matter interferes with light. But light speed still remains constant and doesn't slow down.

Sorry if it interferes with it it has to slow it down to some degree. Just like a black object obsorbs visible spetrum light, and not only slows it down, but STOPS it from ever reaching your eye.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

We're no longer talking about the same concept. I'm talking about the speed of light (c). You're talking about light refraction.


Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry if it interferes with it it has to slow it
> down to some degree.

rip vince.

He is STILL here....posting under anon-screen names.


This is a FACT.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

people people people. IN these difficult times its freaking hard to know who is telling the truth and who is advancing falsehoods. What we really need are sober, intelligent discourse on a way to make the country GREAT AGAIN.