|
18 Sep 2005, 16:44
|
#1
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
A physics question for you to grapple with
Ok.
So there's the whole "no object may travel faster than light as then mass is the square root of a negative number" business, according to Einstein.
Now imagine this situation:
There is a giant "clock hand" positioned somewhere, somehow. Seeing as this is all theoretical anyway I can't be bothered to try and invent details. Now say this hand is so long that while it turns at just a few revolutions per hour, the rotational velocity of the outer tip reaches light speed (or even goes beyond it?).
What happens now?
Does the tip cease to exist somehow?
Is there a blinding flash of light and things blowing up?
Is there some sort of catastrophic collapse of the laws of physics, thus bringing about armageddon?
I'm just interested if anyone has any theories.
CAVEATS (from below)
Assume perfect engineering.
And that it's done in space (zero drag).
And that it's accelerated REALLY SLOWLY.
You ****s.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
Last edited by meglamaniac; 18 Sep 2005 at 16:56.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:49
|
#2
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
What?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:50
|
#3
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
I was bored.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:50
|
#4
|
TashTastic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,354
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Do more drugs.
__________________
Its only gay if you enjoy it!
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:51
|
#5
|
NEWSBOT
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The enby cave!
Posts: 4,872
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
do less drugs.
__________________
[20:27:47] <nodrog-aawy> **** i think my housemate just caught me masturbating
[11:25:32] <idimmu> you are a little piggy arent you
[13:17:00] <KaneED> i'm so closet i'm like narnia
__________________
Pretty parks and funky scrap metal things here
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:53
|
#6
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Stress snaps it in half.
Physics wins again.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:54
|
#7
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by meglamaniac
Ok.
So there's the whole "no object may travel faster than light as then mass is the square root of a negative number" business, according to Einstein.
Now imagine this situation:
There is a giant "clock hand" positioned somewhere, somehow. Seeing as this is all theoretical anyway I can't be bothered to try and invent details. Now say this hand is so long that while it turns at just a few revolutions per hour, the rotational velocity of the outer tip reaches light speed (or even goes beyond it?).
What happens now?
Does the tip cease to exist somehow?
Is there a blinding flash of light and things blowing up?
Is there some sort of catastrophic collapse of the laws of physics, thus bringing about armageddon?
I'm just interested if anyone has any theories.
|
Thats a very good point actually. But do you realise how long that clock hand has to be first? maybe that is the impossible bit?
________
ps3 jailbreak
Last edited by Arachnidman; 25 Jan 2011 at 13:59.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 16:54
|
#8
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Assume perfect engineering.
And that it's done in space (zero drag).
And that it's accelerated REALLY SLOWLY.
You ****s.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:01
|
#9
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Yeh but look how heavy that hand has gotta be.... is it even possible to accelerate such an object.
________
SR50R
Last edited by Arachnidman; 25 Jan 2011 at 13:59.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:02
|
#10
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
It doesn't have to be a giant clock hand.
It could be a really little one that you rotate really really fast.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:02
|
#11
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachnidman
Yeh but look how heavy that hand has gotta be.... is it even possible to accelerate such an object.
|
it's in space.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:03
|
#12
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
In space, no one can hear you scream.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:06
|
#13
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
it's in space.
|
So?
Ok, no air resistance, but F still equals MA
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:08
|
#14
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by meglamaniac
It doesn't have to be a giant clock hand.
It could be a really little one that you rotate really really fast.
|
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:11
|
#15
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Can it be as small as 1 atom of hydrogen? Thus reducing the problem to:
"Is it possible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light"
Cos the answer is no.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:11
|
#16
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
As you try to accelerate something towards the speed of light you require more and more energy to accelerate it any further so that you actually need infinite energy to accelerate anything with any mass to the speed of light. I'd appreciate a pedantic point from MrL right now.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 17:52
|
#17
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
If I recall correctly, what happens when you reach the speed of light is that you don't cease to exist, but that your mass becomes equal to that of the universe. I know shit about physics, but I remember this somewhat part from Astronomy.
Quote:
One of the reasons that prevent any object with a mass going at or faster than the speed of light is that the mass is not constant - it increases with velocity and it goes to infinity at the speed of light. So that eventually you need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate infinite mass past the speed of light mark! (and as far as I know we have yet to find an infinite source of energy :-)
|
Quote:
In fact Einstein's relationship tells us more, it says Energy and mass are interchangeable. Or, better said, rest mass is just one form of energy. For a compound object, the mass of the composite is not just the sum of the masses of the constituents but the sum of their energies, including kinetic, potential, and mass energy. The equation E=mc2 shows how to convert between energy units and mass units. Even a small mass corresponds to a significant amount of energy.
|
The mass that makes up your clockhand would increase, mass and energy is interchaneable or mass is a form of energy, so as you put infinite amounts of energy, the mass would grow to an inifinte size.
I think I slaughtered that, but probably got somewhere it in the ballpark of correctness.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae283.cfm
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html
Last edited by s|k; 18 Sep 2005 at 18:02.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:12
|
#18
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Biggest damn ball-park I ever did see.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:24
|
#19
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
People have already given essentially correct answers. The mass of the material at the end of the hand would increase in your reference frame, such that you would not be able to supply a large enough force to cause the hand to rotate. And yes, if you continued to increase the force, it is likely that the hand would snap.
Also, on a slightly less fundamental note: What do you intend to use as a pivot? You going to wedge it against a very massive planet? Or do you intend to strap two rockets in opposing directions on it separated by a small distance?
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:27
|
#20
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
People have already given essentially correct answers. The mass of the material at the end of the hand would increase in your reference frame, such that you would not be able to supply a large enough force to cause the hand to rotate. And yes, if you continued to increase the force, it is likely that the hand would snap.
Also, on a slightly less fundamental note: What do you intend to use as a pivot? You going to wedge it against a very massive planet? Or do you intend to strap two rockets in opposing directions on it separated by a small distance?
|
The size of the clockhand is really irrelevant. It just needs the right dimensions, so that if you move it slightly at the center, the outer tip approaches the speed of light (an impossiblity). But it could be a tiny clock hand.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:50
|
#21
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
The size of the clockhand is really irrelevant. It just needs the right dimensions, so that if you move it slightly at the center, the outer tip approaches the speed of light (an impossiblity). But it could be a tiny clock hand.
|
This doesn't really make sense. You can't apply enough force to make the outer tip reach the speed of light (you said it's impossible for it to approach the speed of light which is actually wrong, you just can't reach it, small particles have been accelerated to like 99.99999% of the speed of light). The more force you would apply the greater the stress on the hand, as the outer portions would move out of synchronisation. Eventually it'd just snap.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:54
|
#22
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
People have already given essentially correct answers. The mass of the material at the end of the hand would increase in your reference frame, such that you would not be able to supply a large enough force to cause the hand to rotate. And yes, if you continued to increase the force, it is likely that the hand would snap.
Also, on a slightly less fundamental note: What do you intend to use as a pivot? You going to wedge it against a very massive planet? Or do you intend to strap two rockets in opposing directions on it separated by a small distance?
|
hey jennifer did you end up at Ox? QC or not QC (that is the question)?
[edit]if you use a single electron as your clock, you can claim the hand is moving faster than the speed of light, assuming you insist on sucking at physics.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 18:59
|
#23
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
This doesn't really make sense. You can't apply enough force to make the outer tip reach the speed of light (you said it's impossible for it to approach the speed of light which is actually wrong, you just can't reach it, small particles have been accelerated to like 99.99999% of the speed of light). The more force you would apply the greater the stress on the hand, as the outer portions would move out of synchronisation. Eventually it'd just snap.
|
I really don't know anything about physics, and I admit I'm only speaking rubbish.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 19:11
|
#24
|
Motherfracker
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,985
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Tachyon's theorhetically go the speed of light.
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theorehtical so saying "no we can't go the speed of light" is wrong.
Last edited by KaneED; 29 Aug 2006 at 21:41.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 19:20
|
#25
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Tachyon's theorhetically go the speed of light.
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theorehtical so saying "no we can't go the speed of light" is gay and wrong.
|
Of course it's a theory. That's why they're called einstein's special and general theories of relativity. However they're rather good theories. Also to criticise the "science behind the speed of light" right after you mention tachyons, a hypothetical particle, is so inane it's laughable.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 19:20
|
#26
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theorehtical
|
in before aggreived physicists
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 19:21
|
#27
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Tachyon's theorhetically go the speed of light.
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theoretical so saying "no we can't go the speed of light" is gay and wrong.
|
You sound more ignorant than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiots
It's not a fact, it's a theory, so it's really meaningless!
|
This is an incredibly ignorant point of view, held by people who don't understand science. Like creation science and intelligent design nincompoops.
Once something becomes a theory it's withstood rigorous challenges and is not 'just' a theory. This 'just' minimization is often applied to even the best explanation we have for phenomenon because people don't like the explanation. Many times it's ignorant religious fanatics who use this tactic, this time it's a science fiction fan who's seen one too many episodes of Star Trek and has accepted the story as an inevitable future.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 19:53
|
#28
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
You mean we wont have holodecks? There goes my fantasy of living in a porno.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:17
|
#29
|
Motherfracker
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,985
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Of course it's a theory. That's why they're called einstein's special and general theories of relativity. However they're rather good theories. Also to criticise the "science behind the speed of light" right after you mention tachyons, a hypothetical particle, is so inane it's laughable.
|
I WATCH STAR TREK I KNOW WHATS WHAT
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:21
|
#30
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachnidman
You mean we wont have holodecks? There goes my fantasy of living in a porno.
|
if you can show me how any post in this thread shows there won't be holodecks, i'll posrep this:/
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:24
|
#31
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius
guys, read this.
It's about how a portuguese scientist is defying einstein by claiming that speed of light is not that much of a constant, and that it has been much faster before.
|
UFOEVIDENCE.ORG?
I've actually read some of maguejio's book and a lot of is just ranting to be honest. What his theory is supposed to explain can be explained in other ways without the need for a change in c.
PS Holodecks are
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:31
|
#32
|
You love me really
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 342
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
if you can show me how any post in this thread shows there won't be holodecks, i'll posrep this:/
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
seen one too many episodes of Star Trek and has accepted the story as an inevitable future.
|
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:34
|
#33
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
That states something, it doesn't show it. There's a rather important difference.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:58
|
#34
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Tachyon's theorhetically go the speed of light.
|
No, Tachyon's go faster than the speed of light. However, as they can't go slower than the speed of light they've got the same problem from the other direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theorehtical so saying "no we can't go the speed of light" is gay and wrong.
|
Those damn scientists with their "evidence" and their "empiricism".
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 20:59
|
#35
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
I WATCH STAR TREK I KNOW WHATS WHAT
|
You don't know what "theory" means, for a start.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 21:47
|
#36
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachnidman
You mean we wont have holodecks? There goes my fantasy of living in a porno.
|
We effectivly have a holodeck at my Uni. We call it the HIVE. Granted you can't actually physically interect with anything yet (and it's not 360 degress) but we're close!
PS someone hurry up and invent transporters, i'm getting tired of having to walk everywhere
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 21:53
|
#37
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
We effectivly have a holodeck at my Uni. We call it the HIVE. Granted you can't actually physically interect with anything yet (and it's not 360 degress) but we're close!
PS someone hurry up and invent transporters, i'm getting tired of having to walk everywhere
|
You have an MSN webspace.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 22:35
|
#38
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius
click on original source
|
I know flav, it's a theory slightly beyond ufoevidence.org. I was just poking fun.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 22:53
|
#39
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what problem ?
|
That they can't travel at the speed of light, or reach speeds which transcend it.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:00
|
#40
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
You have an MSN webspace.
|
I do? :eek:
Jesus how'd that happen? :eek: :eek: :eek:
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:06
|
#41
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
I do? :eek:
Jesus how'd that happen? :eek: :eek: :eek:
|
You have an MSN webspace.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:20
|
#42
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
You have an MSN webspace.
|
you have no point
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:25
|
#43
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
you have no point
|
I spammed it. :0
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:32
|
#44
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
I spammed it. :0
|
:eek:
it was about as literate as most of those other comments (and their webspaces)
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2005, 23:41
|
#45
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
:eek:
it was about as literate as most of those other comments (and their webspaces)
|
I tried.
|
|
|
20 Sep 2005, 12:25
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Also, on a slightly less fundamental note: What do you intend to use as a pivot? You going to wedge it against a very massive planet? Or do you intend to strap two rockets in opposing directions on it separated by a small distance?
|
that's another interesting point. basically rather than a pivot - since there is no such thing as a stationary point, what you could try doing is spinning the rod around it's centre of mass, so you could have a small weight in the centre spinning around, imparting it's angular momentum to the hand. bets are on that you would require infinite angular momentum to get the hand to turn at c.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Sep 2005, 12:28
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneED
Tachyon's theorhetically go the speed of light.
|
no, photons go at the speed of light. Tachyons are hypothetical particles that go faster than the speed of light.
Quote:
Also, all the science behind the speed of light is theorehtical so saying "no we can't go the speed of light" is gay and wrong.
|
the constant velovity of light speed in a vacuum is based on the permittivity and permeability of free space, which are invariant quantities under velocity and acceleration transforms. Maxwell was probably on the verge of realising this decades before Einstein, but then he died.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Sep 2005, 20:10
|
#48
|
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
|
Re: A physics question for you to grapple with
Thanks for clearing up the tachyon thing for me MrL, Radical Ed et al, saves me having to shout. I don't want to get all stressed out with the idiots tonight, I'm really not in the mood.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47.
| |