Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Well, here goes my physics teaching certificate out the window!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well, here goes my physics teaching certificate out the window!

    Ain't life grand!
    http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/p...nusa01007.html

    chuck
    Chuck
    秋音的爸爸

  • #2
    Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the speed of light slower in water. And as the velocity of light 'C' is measured in a vacuum, it should be possible to exceed the speed of light without exceeding the value of C?

    or shouldn't it?
    The Welsh support two teams when it comes to rugby. Wales of course, and anyone else playing England

    Comment


    • #3
      C is the speed in a vacuum.
      In water light travel at less than C.
      C as a maximum is a pragmatic result. (until now )
      The equations imply that it would take infinite energy to accelerate any object with mass up to C.
      It's not that an object could not go faster than C, just that there isn't enough energy in the universe to push the object hard enough.
      chuck

      Chuck
      秋音的爸爸

      Comment


      • #4
        A bit like my trusty old P2 then?
        The Welsh support two teams when it comes to rugby. Wales of course, and anyone else playing England

        Comment


        • #5
          I would bet my last dollar the experiment is in error. The results are undoubtably misinterpreted.

          Comment


          • #6
            If you can provide me with a bankers draft, then i'll take that bet!
            The Welsh support two teams when it comes to rugby. Wales of course, and anyone else playing England

            Comment


            • #7
              Very interesting and awesome article. I'd bet with you Brian, just let me know how you want to do it The reason I feel there is no flaw is the article talks about another company with a similar breakthrough. Plus, when Einstein formulated the theory or relativity, they didn't really know about sub-atomic particles back then and sub-atomic particles appear to defy the laws of physics.(I should also make a note that I know nothing about any of this stuff except for what I read, so if my answer is amusing to you, you'll know why )

              Dave

              [This message has been edited by Helevitia (edited 06 June 2000).]
              Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Brian,

                I have long held that the current view of the nature of the universe, as held by most physicists, isn't worth a load of dingo's kidneys.

                In fact, it's almost certainly mostly erroneous.

                - Gurm

                ------------------
                Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.
                The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                I'm the least you could do
                If only life were as easy as you
                I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                If only life were as easy as you
                I would still get screwed

                Comment


                • #9
                  The current state of particle physics reminds me of what Chemistry was like just before the invention of the periodic table.
                  Lots of experimental evidence, but no unifying theory that would simplify things.
                  Good theorys always make things simpler.
                  The next couple of years could be very interesting.
                  chuck
                  Chuck
                  秋音的爸爸

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    HAHAHAHA...I love scientific talk. It makes me feel edjumakateded.

                    I have long held that the current view of the nature of the universe, as held by most physicists, isn't worth a load of dingo's kidneys.

                    In fact, it's almost certainly mostly erroneous.
                    Agreed! I love it when people pass off theory as scientific fact since they heard it in school. Always gives me a good laugh.

                    I think I know why aliens always visit Earth. They come here for scientific comedy. I can just imagine them saying, "were we really this stupid 4000 years ago?" Or maybe that's just me...

                    Jammrock

                    ------------------
                    Athlon 650, Biostar board, 128 MB PC133 (Crucial), G400 32 MB DH, SB Live! w/ Digital I/O, 10/100 NIC, lots of case fans, etc...
                    “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
                    –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Patrick: "I would bet my last dollar the experiment is in error.", means you'll only get ONE dollar. Just read it scientifically and you'll understand

                      And for the rest: A theory is just a theory until someone finds a practical way of using the theory, therefor rendering the theory to practicality.

                      Btw, would the breaking-index of water (or any fluid) slow down the speed of light?

                      Jord.
                      Jordâ„¢

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My argument against believing such a report would be the incredible amount of evidence supporting the value of C. Experiments (or two) going against such a huge body of knowledge have happened. Look at the Cold Fusion fiasco around 1988. Another example is polywater some years before that. These incredible results have to stand the test of time. No way will I buy into something like this for years. Even reputable scientists have been sucked in until validating experiments have not been successful. I don't mean the same experiment or one like it repeated, I'm talking about an independent validation using a different approach.

                        Sorry for being a doubting Thomas.

                        [This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 06 June 2000).]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.
                          It should be nice having windows loaded even before I press the power button

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Nah, all that would mean is a few seconds less delay.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "It should be nice having windows loaded even before I press the power button"

                              should that be:

                              It would NOT be nice having windows crashed even before I press the power button

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X