I read only a little bit when I realised I wasn't in a sciency mood.
| ClanKiller.com https://forums.clankiller.com/ |
|
| We've broken the speed of light. https://forums.clankiller.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2529 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Mole [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | We've broken the speed of light. |
| Author: | derf [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I read only a little bit when I realised I wasn't in a sciency mood.
|
|
| Author: | Mole [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I posted the entire transcript on Ciao if anyone wants to read the debate. infact, I'll edit it in to the first post. |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hmmm...I'm not sure I agree...though I haven't read it all. 1. Absolute zero... my understanding is absolute 0 is the absence of all energy, at which point electrons would fall into a molecule. Theoretical and impossible since there's always some energy being fed externally. But it's basically the point at which something can't get any colder. 2. The speed of light being broken... I saw that article... there seems to be some thought that the scientists are misreading their results and that the speed of light wasn't really broken. The whole problem with traveling faster than the speed of light is that Einstein said it would take infinite amounts of energy and that it was the fastest anything could travel.... bleh, anyway, I don't know enough about the specific experiment to form a cogent argument, so I guess I'll leave it alone. Happy monkey day! |
|
| Author: | Mole [ Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heh, I knew you'd disagree 
but seriously, I want to super emphasise the following point Everything I've stated except for the comment on below absolute zero is based completely on theoretical science and the basis that the article is accurate. I don't take any of it to be fact, expect the my physics teacher taught me that the scale goes 1 below absolute zero and I assume that same should be applied to any scale. Which is a dodgey assumption to begin with. Really I was just toying around with the ideas in my head. I'm well impressed that I figured out it's theoretically possible to travel backward in time in 2 different ways, but never forward. With einstiens theory that it would require infinite energy - I used that to support some arguments that I made, but it's also the downfall in that from what I Can tell, we can't utilise the infinite energy that is around us in anyway. So the scientists are probably bullshitters. However, maybe they invented the science equivalent of an energy efficient light bulb? haha |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|