Proof that the speed of light is a universal maximum, is impossible

Academia would rather he didn't exist.
When your lifes' work is upheld by certain principles - Any contest therewith is unwelcome.

Have a Lovely day

Light does have mass - Just not measurable-mass.
It's moving too fast to measure.

Kinda like trying to see what colour socks the 'flash' is wearing - As he whizzes past...?

Have a Lovely day

Fairies are real too, just that they move too fast to measure.
You are an idiot to believe this.

Then prove 'PROVE' otherwise, please?

Use Big Words - So as to promote idealogical accurates.

Cheers!

Have a lovely Now

Light has no Mass, ever. "IT" is NOT a PHYSICAL object, that could just sit on the table, motionless. So talk about measuring its "mass" when stationary is moronic, or suggesting that it possesses a different mass at speed is also just as moronic.
How much mass does Love have? Or hot? or Time?

None, because they are not OBJECTS. They don't PHYSICALLY exist.
Physical objects have dimensions, volume, density, Mass, and have properties such as temperature, conductivity etc.

Light has NONE of these attributes.
Nothing is actually "physically moving" from the source to the illuminated object. The effect of light is propagating through the medium, but NOTHING PHYSICAL EXISTS that could "move".

The current Particle Theory of everything is moronic. (photons in this case)

Light 'Photonic-inference' is perceived as both a function 'particle' And a 'wave' - Uniform ripple 'length'.

Double-slit...

BECAUSE - The 'Observer' is measuring its deliveration-point from a 'POO' (Point of Observation) that is 'Secondary' to its 'POOP' (Point of observable propagation).

The 'C' (Speed of Light) is determined, loosely, by the material it encounters on its voyage/s 'Quartzite chrystal= approx 24 mph (Miles per hour) - Empty space... (No such thing) 182.000k per second - With a decadal-measurement (Obtained by 10 uni-based 'academically-aligned' sources). degree of fallacy=.0005-Ish.

LIGHT-SPEED is NOT a 'Constant'.

Nor is any 'measurement' thereof.

Have a Lovely Day

Not sure if you are serious or not. If you are, the concept of what a constant is should be further investigated by you.

I understand the meaning of 'constant', both scientifically and metaphorically - I also understand you to be aligned to the 'former'.
All else is 'pseudo' unto the 'academically-inclined'.

Best of progressive-fortune unto you and yours.

There are NO absolute Constants.

Have a Lovely Day (Except my well-intended sign-offs, perhaps)

You say "I understand the meaning of 'constant', both scientifically and metaphorically" and then follow it up with "There are NO absolute Constants."

That second part leads me to not believe the first part.

Please explain to me why science considers the speed of light to be a constant (whether right or wrong in your opinion is immaterial. Just why does science say it is a constant.). That way I know you are being honest with that first part.

You do understand that with every action - The shape/form of the physically 'acknowledged (Perceivable) sensually-detectable, universe-ours - Alters?
Either by expansion, contraction, criterial-location or poo (point of observation).

Simply put - Are you (The observer/perceiver/measurer) in the Exact same 'Universal-location' at any point whereso you can conduct the 'Same/Exact' measurement - Twice?

Have a Lovely Day

Please explain to me why science considers the speed of light to be a constant. You have not done that simple thing. Wikipedia can help if you need hints.

Why?

You never answer my questions - Even though they are intended to provide your questions with answers.

Do you know how the speed of light is measured?
Do you know the 10 academical institutes, that every decade, provide the 'current' speed of light measurements?
Do you know that NONE of their measurements are the same?
Do you know that the speed of light is based on an 'AVERAGE' of Said 10 measurements?
And 'EACH' of those measurements are measured from a different poo, than ....

What's the point explaining?
Go watch - The Connected Universe. I gifted you the direction.

Have a Lovely Day

Please explain to me why science considers the speed of light to be a constant. You have not done that simple thing. Wikipedia can help if you need hints.

No.

Enjoy your reality.

Have a Lovely Day

I looked into Nassim Haramein, he is yet another deceitful trickster, his ideas are all based on Jewish Kabbalah numerology.
What a load of crap.
Its meaningless new age babble.

HEY!!! Look at that... we agree on something!

and if you took a step back from the dogmatic position you have about other subjects, you might find out that not everything you have been told is true.

Through which 'Lens' were you looking?

He'll show up as 'pseudo' if you look through the 'google' lens.

You'll find 'Robert Schock, Graham Hancock, John Anthony West' also 'pseudo-linked' alongside him.

Kinda like the mad-scientist 'Nikola Tesla' Until lately...

Follow your own path - Enjoy the journey.

Have a Lovely Day

(C*)= {f} IR

Robert Schock, Graham Hancock, John Anthony West and
Nikola Tesla are not believers in Judaism's Cult of Kabbalah and Numerology, and Magic, like your cult leader buddy is.