GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: VW BUSH on 18 November 2011, 19:21
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
Is Albert wrong?
-
Of course we can travel faster than SOL, how the hell would Warp Drive work otherwise :rolleyes:
Thom
-
Every past theory will be proved wrong eventually. Thats why its just a Theory!
-
You need to go onto iplayer and watch the iirc Horizon programme about this. It was on about 3 weeks ago. With that Prof djalili chap. Apparently is not true as the boffins miscalculated the distance from underneath the mountain to the detector. Fascinating though.
-
You need to go onto iplayer and watch the iirc Horizon programme about this. It was on about 3 weeks ago. With that Prof djalili chap. Apparently is not true as the boffins miscalculated the distance from underneath the mountain to the detector. Fascinating though.
i saw that too. trying so hard to disprove einstein seems they forgot all about newton
what they used
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55556000/jpg/_55556200_cern_624_v2.jpg)
what einstein used
(http://www.whitcombauto.com/images/photos/notepad_and_pencil.gif)
-
Einstein wouldn't be able to live in todays world with computers as he spent his last dying days trying to disprove transistor theory.
Next question - is light a wave or a particle?
-
It can be both
-
Is it not a particle that forms a wave.
-
Its a particle when stationary and a wave when moving but can be both stationary and moving at the same time. Or something like that. Its a facinating subject physics and quantum physics more to the point. I don't believe that science has even scratched the surface with it yet. More complex than the human brain could comprehend. The true origin of reality.
-
but is it stationary when being viewed by an observer traveling the same speed..
-
but is it stationary when being viewed by an observer traveling the same speed..
No because they will always be travelling at a different speed to some extent.
The true origin of reality is this:
-
The speed at which the light hits your eyes for you to notice its stationary :wink:
-
at which point you're only seeing your brains interpretation of electrical signals from the optic nerve anyway.. so does light even really exist? i <3 quantum mechanics
-
It exists, yes. However we only see a small portition of the spectrum, I bet there are colours we don't even see :cool:
-
at which point you're only seeing your brains interpretation of electrical signals from the optic nerve anyway.. so does light even really exist? i <3 quantum mechanics
Mind = blown.
It's like saying "If a tree falls in a forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"
My answer is that it creates the sound waves, but it won't become a noise until it hits the eardrum and is converted into a signal recognisable by the brain.
-
It exists, yes. However we only see a small portition of the spectrum, I bet there are colours we don't even see :cool:
think about what you just said. if you don't still get it pick up your tv remote and find a sunscreen advert... 2 birds one stone.
-
The flux capacitor SAYS NO on a friday :rolleyes:
-
Light propagates as a wave and interacts as a particle so is therefore truly neither. :nerd:
-
Cheeseburger please.
-
Light propagates as a wave and interacts as a particle so is therefore truly neither. :nerd:
wavicle.
-
E=MC2 is WRONG because 0 + 1 = 0.
-
E=MC2 is WRONG because 0 + 1 = 0.
thats it!! it all makes sense now :smiley:
-
Wait for the God squad to arrive as disprove all your theories :evil:
-
(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr182/the_flying_elvi/father_ted_down_with_this_sort_of_t.jpg)
-
I don't get why 0 + 1 = 0 :huh:
Example, I have 0 £s in my bank account, I then find £1 on the floor, I put that in my bank account so I now have £1. So 0 + 1 = 1 surely ? Or am I missing something ? :grin:
-
Missed it. Ask Lenda how 0+1=1 :grin:
-
Ah, if Len said it then it must be true. :rolleyes:
Any links ?
-
I don't get why 0 + 1 = 0 :huh:
Example, I have 0 £s in my bank account, I then find £1 on the floor, I put that in my bank account so I now have £1. So 0 + 1 = 1 surely ? Or am I missing something ? :grin:
exactly.
Sod this speed of light crap. What a waste of money. i have far more important things to sort. :rolleyes:
-
Lenda at her finest :grin:
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=211985.msg1964606#msg1964606
-
Lenda at her finest :grin:
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=211985.msg1964606#msg1964606
Should that be Len-derrrrrrr :grin:
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
lol love the new theories being developed, maybe we should sell this forum as a think tank for the enlightened....
Looking at the new method to measure the particles/waves/cheeseburgers under the alsps, it seems as though it has broken the speed of cheeseburger/light.
If true we have to start re thinking some of our flormulae.
With this new knowledge maybe we could actually make a warp engine, how to bolt it into a Mk3 is another story as I dont think the ABF gearbox can stand that much torque :grin:
-
Lenda at her finest :grin:
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=211985.msg1964606#msg1964606
Classic. :laugh: A pound to a penny says he still thinks he's right. :rolleyes: .......but if you win and I do give you that pound, you'll still only have £0 in your pocket as 0 + 1 = 0 you see. :grin:
-
:grin:
-
ummm wonder what happens if one swaps speed of light out for speed of nutreno as the cosmic speed limute. anyway i wants a time machene thatway the mk3 golf will never happen :evil:
-
ummm wonder what happens if one swaps speed of light out for speed of nutreno as the cosmic speed limute. anyway i wants a time machene thatway the mk3 golf will never happen :evil:
4000 posts on a golf forum and you havent figured out that the mk3 is the best gti to date :tongue: :grin: :grin:
-
but is it stationary when being viewed by an observer traveling the same speed..
No because they will always be travelling at a different speed to some extent.
The true origin of reality is this:
Apparently, the speed of light is NOT relative. From Einsteins theories, the speed of light is constant, regardless of the relative motion of the observer. As such, an observer on an asteroid (say) hurtling towards the sun at 100,000 mph, will measure the speed of the light (usually about 300,000,000 m/s in a vacume) emitted form the sun to be 300,000,000 m/s, and not 300,000,000 - 100,000... Similarly, when moving at the same speed away from the sun, its still measures 300,000,000 m/s. :nerd:
-
did you even read any of this thread? :laugh:
-
ummm wonder what happens if one swaps speed of light out for speed of nutreno as the cosmic speed limute. anyway i wants a time machene thatway the mk3 golf will never happen :evil:
4000 posts on a golf forum and you havent figured out that the mk3 is the best gti to date :tongue: :grin: :grin:
Or how to spell :shocked:
-
If a car hits a wall at 30mph, its a 30mph total collision
If a car hits a car at 30mph and the other car is doing 30mph, its a 60mph total collision
If light hits light at the speed of light what is the total collision speed?
-
If a car hits a wall at 30mph, its a 30mph total collision
If a car hits a car at 30mph and the other car is doing 30mph, its a 60mph total collision
If light hits light at the speed of light what is the total collision speed?
geek hat on.
total collision speeds are a simple newtonian mechanical calculation (V = V1 + V2) to explain what happens to the forces/momentum of an object with mass.
photons are massless and you need to move over to special relativity which would define the formula as V = (V1 + V2)/(1 + V1* V2/c²)
so your answer is tomato.
-
If a car hits a wall at 30mph, its a 30mph total collision
If a car hits a car at 30mph and the other car is doing 30mph, its a 60mph total collision
If light hits light at the speed of light what is the total collision speed?
There is no collision.
-
Or how to spell :shocked:
i'm actualy quite dyslexic and have probaly put more effort in to spelling than most people and to not make errors in spelling usally require me to read through something a few times thats dosent usally happen when posting on forums. if you wish to take the piss you are more than welcome to do so as long as you do it in person if and when i ever meet you in person. ( i'll leave it up to you to decide if thats a good idea )
thankfully spelling is not an issue for me in ether of my jobs. in one i have very littel paperwork to do in one of them and the other i have someone to who ether translates my scribbelings or takes notes and types it up.
tho what you have acheved is reduceing the amont of avalible bothered to reply with usefull infomation and or advice to questions ect on forums in general and a garantee of unhelpfull pokeing with stick type comments to any problem or question posted by yourself
-
Or how to spell :shocked:
i'm actualy quite dyslexic and have probaly put more effort in to spelling than most people and to not make errors in spelling usally require me to read through something a few times thats dosent usally happen when posting on forums. if you wish to take the piss you are more than welcome to do so as long as you do it in person if and when i ever meet you in person. ( i'll leave it up to you to decide if thats a good idea )
thankfully spelling is not an issue for me in ether of my jobs. in one i have very littel paperwork to do in one of them and the other i have someone to who ether translates my scribbelings or takes notes and types it up.
tho what you have acheved is reduceing the amont of avalible bothered to reply with usefull infomation and or advice to questions ect on forums in general and a garantee of unhelpfull pokeing with stick type comments to any problem or question posted by yourself
Thanks for proving my point. :smug:
-
Thanks for proving my point. :smug:
Being dyslexic is not fun and it's not something that you should mock, and it most certainly does not mean someone is thick. Danny has a wealth of knowledge which he has proved over and over, comes on here and helps people out FOC when he charges for doing the same thing at work. Be grateful to people like him, they're the kind that keep online communities a source of knowledge for others.
-
Thanks for proving my point. :smug:
Being dyslexic is not fun and it's not something that you should mock, and it most certainly does not mean someone is thick. Danny has a wealth of knowledge which he has proved over and over, comes on here and helps people out FOC when he charges for doing the same thing at work. Be grateful to people like him, they're the kind that keep online communities a source of knowledge for others.
Yes dyslexia is no fun. At no point was any comment about his intelligence. And I'm sure he has a great wealth of knowledge.
-
If a car hits a wall at 30mph, its a 30mph total collision
If a car hits a car at 30mph and the other car is doing 30mph, its a 60mph total collision
If light hits light at the speed of light what is the total collision speed?
There is no collision.
In one.
-
^yet to be proven.
-
Thanks for proving my point. :smug:
Being dyslexic is not fun and it's not something that you should mock, and it most certainly does not mean someone is thick. Danny has a wealth of knowledge which he has proved over and over, comes on here and helps people out FOC when he charges for doing the same thing at work. Be grateful to people like him, they're the kind that keep online communities a source of knowledge for others.
Yes dyslexia is no fun. At no point was any comment about insulting his intelligence. And I'm sure he has a great wealth of knowledge.
:lipsrsealed:
-
Thanks for proving my point.
Really? Is that the best come-back you can make?
Precisely what point of yours did Danny prove?
Always delighted to see people just opening the taps and roaring into the distance in comparison to me in the 'being a c*nt' stakes and you are world-class on the evidence in this thread.
-
^yet to be proven.
Do explain?
-
the idea of a 90 degree interaction of photons has been around for donkeys, and comes attached with scary stories of matter/antimatter creation, but the probability is so close to 0 that it can't be/hasn't been detected.
some bedtime reading http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0510/0510076v2.pdf
-
the idea of a 90 degree interaction of photons has been around for donkeys, and comes attached with scary stories of matter/antimatter creation, but the probability is so close to 0 that it can't be/hasn't been detected.
some bedtime reading http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0510/0510076v2.pdf
:grin: :grin:
Thom
-
They might be wrong:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15830844