On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
> >>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >>>> .
> >>> It does.
> >>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> >>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is observer dependent.
> >>>
> >> Common sense does not claim that about light.
> >
> > Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
> > observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
> > It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
> everything including light is just wrong.

No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.

> > .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
> > meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
> > dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
> >
> >> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
> >> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
> >> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
> >> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
> >> had in your common
> >> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
> >> because you personally have never measured light speed.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
>>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>>>>>> .
>>>>> It does.
>>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
>>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
>>>>> observer dependent.
>>>>>
>>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
>>>
>>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
>>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
>> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
>> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
>>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
>> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
>> everything including light is just wrong.
>
> No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.

Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.

You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you.

>
>>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
>>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
>>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
>>>
>>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
>>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
>>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
>>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
>>>> had in your common
>>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
>>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
> >>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>> It does.
> >>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> >>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
> >>>>> observer dependent.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
> >>>
> >>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
> >>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
> >> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
> >> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
> >>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
> >> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
> >> everything including light is just wrong.
> >
> > No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.
> Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
> explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.
> You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you.

Why would I want to waste time to study obsolete physics? Why don’t you spent some time study MM?
> >
> >>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
> >>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
> >>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
> >>>
> >>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
> >>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
> >>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
> >>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
> >>>> had in your common
> >>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
> >>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>>>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
>>>>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> It does.
>>>>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
>>>>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
>>>>>>> observer dependent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
>>>>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
>>>> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
>>>> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
>>>>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
>>>> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
>>>> everything including light is just wrong.
>>>
>>> No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.
>> Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
>> explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.
>> You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you.
>
> Why would I want to waste time to study obsolete physics?

I study physics, what physicists call physics, not what some crazy
know-nothing loon calls physics, that’s why.

> Why don’t you spent some time study MM?
>>>
>>>>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
>>>>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
>>>>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
>>>>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
>>>>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
>>>>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
>>>>>> had in your common
>>>>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
>>>>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>>>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>>>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>>>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
> >>>>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>> It does.
> >>>>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> >>>>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
> >>>>>>> observer dependent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
> >>>>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
> >>>> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
> >>>> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
> >>>>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
> >>>> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
> >>>> everything including light is just wrong.
> >>>
> >>> No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.
> >> Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
> >> explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.
> >> You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you.
> >
> > Why would I want to waste time to study obsolete physics?
> I study physics, what physicists call physics, not what some crazy
> know-nothing loon calls physics, that’s why.
Congratulation, so you are a fanatic obsolete physicist.

> > Why don’t you spent some time study MM?
> >>>
> >>>>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
> >>>>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
> >>>>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
> >>>>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
> >>>>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
> >>>>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
> >>>>>> had in your common
> >>>>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
> >>>>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
>>>>>>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> It does.
>>>>>>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
>>>>>>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
>>>>>>>>> observer dependent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
>>>>>>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
>>>>>> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
>>>>>> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
>>>>>>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
>>>>>> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
>>>>>> everything including light is just wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.
>>>> Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
>>>> explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.
>>>> You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you.
>>>
>>> Why would I want to waste time to study obsolete physics?
>> I study physics, what physicists call physics, not what some crazy
>> know-nothing loon calls physics, that’s why.
> Congratulation, so you are a fanatic obsolete physicist.

According to some crazy know-nothing loon, why yes, I suppose I might be.
Of course, in reality, I’m not a physicist at all.
You can’t get actual physicists to talk to you at all.

So other than venting your rage about your current state of being ignored,
what does all this accomplish for you? Does this conversation change
anything about your lack of recognition or acceptance of your ideas? Does
it change anything about your isolation and poverty, other than give you
someone to be angry at?

>
>>> Why don’t you spent some time study MM?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
>>>>>>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
>>>>>>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
>>>>>>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
>>>>>>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
>>>>>>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
>>>>>>>> had in your common
>>>>>>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
>>>>>>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
> >>>>>>>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>> It does.
> >>>>>>>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> >>>>>>>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is
> >>>>>>>>> observer dependent.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
> >>>>>>> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?
> >>>>>> As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
> >>>>>> it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.
> >>>>>>> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.
> >>>>>> No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
> >>>>>> everything including light is just wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No relevant answer so the bullsit begin.
> >>>> Sorry, Ken, but you’re a know-nothing loon, and so you aren’t owed an
> >>>> explanation on a newsgroup why your gut instincts are wrong.
> >>>> You could read a first-year textbook, but somehow this terrifies you..
> >>>
> >>> Why would I want to waste time to study obsolete physics?
> >> I study physics, what physicists call physics, not what some crazy
> >> know-nothing loon calls physics, that’s why.
> > Congratulation, so you are a fanatic obsolete physicist.
> According to some crazy know-nothing loon, why yes, I suppose I might be.
> Of course, in reality, I’m not a physicist at all.
> You can’t get actual physicists to talk to you at all.
>
> So other than venting your rage about your current state of being ignored,

There is no anger on my part. MM is out there and some day some unindictrinated physicists will discover it.

> what does all this accomplish for you? Does this conversation change
> anything about your lack of recognition or acceptance of your ideas? Does
> it change anything about your isolation and poverty, other than give you
> someone to be angry at?
> >
> >>> Why don’t you spent some time study MM?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
> >>>>>>> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
> >>>>>>> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
> >>>>>>>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
> >>>>>>>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
> >>>>>>>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
> >>>>>>>> had in your common
> >>>>>>>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
> >>>>>>>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables