...
And to refresh your apparently failing memory, I asked several pages back "which particles with mass travel at the speed of light "at the earth's surface." Not in a vacuum; not in a perfect vacuum; and not in a "more perfect vacuum" whatever that is.
And your answer was "millions!!" Which turns out to be bullsh**, and once you realized it was bullsh** you churned out a few more pages of bullsh** to cover up the fact that you were wrong. So it's just like I said, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when it slaps you upside your pointy little head.
And I'll stick by my original answer because it is correct.
The speed of light at the earth's surface (i.e. in the atmosphere) is considerably lower than the theoretical maximum and untold billions of light-speed particles (photons) hit your body every second. This includes photons with different energy levels from that below radio waves to visible light (which represents a very tiny portion of the EM spectrum) to gamma rays. In full sunlight this equates to about 10^17 photons per square centimeter per second. That is about 100,000,000,000,000,000 per square centimeter per second, which is a wee bit more than "millions". For an adult sunbathing on a beach it is about 10^21 (one trillion billion) per second, and that does not include photons generated by other sources. (This assumes 2.0 square meters of skin area for the adult with half of that exposed to the sunlight.)
Photons always travel at the speed of light, which varies depending on the medium through which they travel. Photons travelling through air are still travelling at light-speed, which is different than light-speed in a vacuum or water or glass or whatever. Photons have a theoretical zero mass at rest but have mass when not at rest - and they are never at rest.
It is also true that some particles travel faster than light, again depending on the medium through which they are travelling. Beta particles (electrons or positrons) are a classic and well-understood example. Don't go swimming as the beta particles may get you. But maybe the people giving out the Nobel Prize for Physics (1958, although the discovery was in 1934) didn't know what they were doing.
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension. My statement about a "more perfect vacuum" is easily understood in full context by anyone with average intelligence. My statement "An omission on my part - that should have read "In a more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. " was wrong as you clearly DID NOT get the idea. That statement was in reference to the following:
"In a perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment) than exists even in outer space..."
and meant that it should have read thusly:
"In a
more perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment)
than exists even in outer space..."
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the vacuum of outer space is not a perfect vacuum. Now you know. Maybe.
