breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com

Also, there's too much math with all this, and I don't particularly
enjoy math. Meteorology involves significantly less. I worked so hard
to pull off a B this term in math. If it wasn't for a notebook check
and a few other easy A's, my report card would have looked like this;
A, A, A, A, D (the D being math of course) I make so many careless
errors it's ridiculous, so I wouldn't be a trustworthy physicist.
 
"It's the "del" operator of vector Calculus. See page 3 of..."

Oh, great, the calculus again. There's no escaping. Of course, it had
to be a calculus operator. (groan)
 
The timer just went off, I have to go take my pasta salad off the
stove. I'll check back in a little while.
 
In the Baha'i faith no one of any age is permitted to ingest wine or
any other alcohol. (no one reply to this, I just had to say it. Stay on
the topic of breaking the light speed barrier, please)
:)
 
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:07:00 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On 5 Feb 2005 10:03:26 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com
wrote:

The timer just went off, I have to go take my pasta salad off the
stove. I'll check back in a little while.

And ~~SciGirl~~ can cook, too ;-)
Click to expand...
Now Jim! Don't you think ~~SciGirl~~ is a little young for you?

--
Keith
 
E=MC^2-GammaMV is the full equation. Gamma is proportional to how fast
you are going. It effects length contraction, time dilation, and
apparent mass. Basically, by looking at the equations, as you get
closer and closer to the speed of light, you're apparent mass gets
larger and larger with your mass equalling infinity at the speed of
light. Hence it would take an infinite amount of energy for you to get
to the speed of light. Photons get around this by being massless.
 
That quantum physics test is not very good. I took a course on quantum
physics and the test has some issues.
 
On 5 Feb 2005 09:52:22 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com>
wrote:

I looked at it...
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.electronics.design+a...


It's certainly seeming to be a controversial topic. I'm keeping an open
mind. Maybe, maybe not. But I don't really agree with the thinking that
the cable could move things faster than lightspeed.

In however many billion years, the Sun will become a supergiant and
will engulf the Earth. At that time, humans will probably need to
relocate.
Click to expand...

The sun will expand very slowly. There will be plenty of time to move
the Earth's orbit out to keep the temperature comfy. It's actually not
difficult to do.

John
 
"That quantum physics test is not very good. I took a course on quantum
physics and the test has some issues."

I figured. I mean, what kind of a question is "Which of the following
does the neutino apply to?" Whoever made it doesn't really sound like
he or she knows what they're talking about. I couldn't say exactly
what's wrong with it, but I can sort of tell it's not accurate.
 
"The sun will expand very slowly. There will be plenty of time to move
the Earth's orbit out to keep the temperature comfy. It's actually not
difficult to do. "

MOVE the earth's orbit?!?
 
The first i ever read about QED was at the very end of "The Cartoon
Guide to Physics." That was about 4 months ago, and it took me three
months to understand it (I was missing one key little piece of
information and so I was thinking on the way to school one day and
suddenly got it.) Their chapter on Faraday induction isn't very good,
so without the missing info I couldn't really understand anything
further into the book.
 
I'm in 8th grade, not high school yet, so I can't take pre cal yet, nor
can I take any science classes other than what I'm in.
 
Its hard to imagine where what we can rely on begins and where it ends.
For instance, the emission of a photon violates the law of conservation
of energy. The law is of good purpose to, say, my science class, but
you can't really depend on it in qed.
 
And where do we get the enormous amounts of energy and equipment
required to do that?
 
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:54:46 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

As John Larkin said... "Same sort of thing, altering the shape of a
pulse and thinking that makes it go faster. Optically, an oscillatory
burst can appear to
exceed C if you sort of stand back and squint, but no photons are going
faster than C."

You can never be positive. If you cannot measure the position and
velocity of the photons simultaneously, how can you be sure they are
not going faster than c? Nobody can really measure the speed of the
particles as they exited the container, because you'd need to specify
the position defined as "exiting the container." This could disprove
the experiment, but it could also disprove the arguments of everyone
who does not believe the photons moved faster than c.
Click to expand...
You can't. You have to just take it on faith. ;-)

No photon can go faster than c, because Maxwell said so, and Einstein
agrees with him. ;-P

I think John Larkin said it best: "If there's something going faster than
c, it's not a photon." And, according to the definition of "photon",
that's absolutely true.

Good Luck!
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
 
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:07:00 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On 5 Feb 2005 10:03:26 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com
wrote:

The timer just went off, I have to go take my pasta salad off the
stove. I'll check back in a little while.

And ~~SciGirl~~ can cook, too ;-)

Down, boy. She's fourteen!
Click to expand...
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, Still Waiting for
Some Hot Babe to Ask What My Favorite Planet Is.
 
On 5 Feb 2005 10:03:26 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com>
wrote:

The timer just went off, I have to go take my pasta salad off the
stove. I'll check back in a little while.
Click to expand...
Dang, that reminds me that it's time to stir the beans. They start to
stick towards the end.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top