Albert Einstein Wrong!

[goodONE]

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.

[pgrmdave]

It's time for yet another round of "someone doesn't understand science"!

[Eclogite]

To the casual lurker: does the hysterical and sneering tone of goodONE's post ring warning bells for you? If not, then perhaps you are thinking, "maybe these pesky sceintists are not as smart as they think they are. I had always suspected that, but it looks as if goodONE has a concrete example." If that is what you are thinking consider this:

 

Billy's claim is that " I have calculated that the light constant steadily decreases within the framework of a certain half-life." Now the term half-life is normally applied to the decay rate of radioactive atoms. What does it mean applied to something that is nominally constant?

 

Let us suppose that the half-life of c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is 2 billion years. That means that 2 billion years ago the speed of light was twice what it is now and in 2 billion years time it will be half what is now and in a further two billion years a quarter of its present value. goodONE does not tell us what half life value Billy had calculated for c, but that is unimportant to the current discussion. The important point is that Billy's claim is that the speed of light decreases over time in a predictable manner.

 

goodONE's claim is that scientists have now confirmed this fact - that they have confirmed that the value of the constant c decreases over time. What have they actually discovered? The answer is there in the first paragraph of goodONE's link: "focusing or manipulating the structure of light pulses reduces their speed". How does that relate to Billy's claim? Does it confirm it?

 

Absolutely not. What the experiment shows is that if I measured the speed of light one year ago, or one billion years ago, under a normal set of conditions it would have the speed c. If I measured it one year ago, or one billion years ago, or three billion years in the future under the special conditions set up in the experiment then it would have a slower speed, but one that was identical in the past, present and future.

 

Their experiment shows that the speed of light decreases in response to structure, Billy claims that is decreases in response to time. Billy is wrong, goodONE is wrong. The research does not support Billy's claim.

 

Here is the executive summary, courtesy of pgrmdave: it's time for yet another round of "someone doesn't understand science"!

 

 

[goodONE]

ah ha so we ALL agree that light can be influenced . lets remember that ligh in one second is gone out ouf this world SOOOit must then be influenced by the gravity the hot and cold the radiation the dark mater and what ever else is there in the everywhere of space . sooo just like any other mater it can be controlled like MY.......SMILE

[pgrmdave]

ah ha so we ALL agree that light can be influenced .

Nobody ever said it couldn't. Strawmen won't get you far.

 

lets remember that ligh in one second is gone out ouf this world

not sure what you mean here - that after 1 second light has traveled away from earth quickly enough that it is no longer "on earth"? okay. Again - not controversial, nobody disagrees here.

 

SOOOit must then be influenced by the gravity the hot and cold the radiation the dark mater and what ever else is there in the everywhere of space . sooo just like any other mater it can be controlled like MY.......SMILE

And here's where you're clearly a troll.

[Eclogite]

ah ha so we ALL agree that light can be influenced . lets remember that ligh in one second is gone out ouf this world SOOOit must then be influenced by the gravity the hot and cold the radiation the dark mater and what ever else is there in the everywhere of space . sooo just like any other mater it can be controlled like MY.......SMILE

And such influences have been investigated, observed, defined and refined by scientists, their observations tested and retested, subject to excruciating questioning and subsequent validation. This is all rather different from the process of having a small mind and a large mouth.