A Lesson in Good Science for Global W...

A Lesson in Good Science for Global Warming Faithful

There are 10 comments on the Frontpage Mag story from Sep 28, 2011, titled A Lesson in Good Science for Global Warming Faithful. In it, Frontpage Mag reports that:

Last week a team of scientists working at CERN, the European scientific research organization, published a research paper that has rocked the scientific community.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Frontpage Mag.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Sep 28, 2011
Much hype about nothing. Einstein said that MASS cannot be accelerated TO the speed of light. It says nothing about MASSLESS particles or travelling FASTER than light (tachyons are theorized to never go SLOWER). Photons (also massless) inherently travel AT the speed of light. In fact, that is the DEFINITION of the speed of light..

And while they think their .002% difference is beyond instument error, I don't think they are ready to throw out the textbook just yet.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#2 Sep 28, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Much hype about nothing. Einstein said that MASS cannot be accelerated TO the speed of light. It says nothing about MASSLESS particles or travelling FASTER than light (tachyons are theorized to never go SLOWER). Photons (also massless) inherently travel AT the speed of light. In fact, that is the DEFINITION of the speed of light..
And while they think their .002% difference is beyond instument error, I don't think they are ready to throw out the textbook just yet.
Nope, go read special realtivity and then cacluate the Lorentz factor for a faster than light particle.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#3 Sep 28, 2011
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, go read special realtivity and then cacluate the Lorentz factor for a faster than light particle.
The issue ONLY arise for v*v == c*c where you get sqrt(1/0) i.e. infinity.

Why do you post references which just confirm my point?? Too many stupid pills? Unable to read??

For speeds where v*v > c*c, the force needed actually gets lower as you speed up. i.e. you have to LOSE energy to go faster. A point that was made for the hypothetical tachyon.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#4 Sep 28, 2011
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Why do you post references which just confirm my point?? Too many stupid pills? Unable to read??
No, that would be you, and 99% of posters agree, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Any news on CO2, "as a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#5 Sep 28, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue ONLY arise for v*v == c*c where you get sqrt(1/0) i.e. infinity.
It also factored into a number of ideas for a 'space drive' that could go faster than light by some trick to avoid the speed of light itself. I.e 'tunneling' from just below light speed to just above (quantum mechanics was usually thrown in as the 'how').

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#6 Sep 28, 2011
NoFactAllHype wrote:
It also factored into a number of ideas for a 'space drive' that could go faster than light by some trick to avoid the speed of light itself. I.e 'tunneling' from just below light speed to just above (quantum mechanics was usually thrown in as the 'how').
I now see why you were, "found wanting."
NoFactAllHype wrote:
I am not a scientist. I am a university educated engineer, who STARTED in the science but was found wanting.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/upper-fruitla...
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#7 Sep 28, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue ONLY arise for v*v == c*c where you get sqrt(1/0) i.e. infinity.
Why do you post references which just confirm my point?? Too many stupid pills? Unable to read??
For speeds where v*v > c*c, the force needed actually gets lower as you speed up. i.e. you have to LOSE energy to go faster. A point that was made for the hypothetical tachyon.
So again, what would the Lorentz factor be for a particle greater than the speed of light?
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#8 Sep 28, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue ONLY arise for v*v == c*c where you get sqrt(1/0) i.e. infinity.
Why do you post references which just confirm my point?? Too many stupid pills? Unable to read??
For speeds where v*v > c*c, the force needed actually gets lower as you speed up. i.e. you have to LOSE energy to go faster. A point that was made for the hypothetical tachyon.
What references are you talking about?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#9 Sep 28, 2011
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
So again, what would the Lorentz factor be for a particle greater than the speed of light?
negative but NOT infinite, as I pointed out. Anything that gets above the speed of light (by whatever means) can go faster by losing energy and has to gain energy to slow DOWN. Again, the limit is the speed of light but in that case it is the limit of slow.

This is all physics known back in the fifties. Do catch up.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#10 Sep 28, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
negative but NOT infinite, as I pointed out. Anything that gets above the speed of light (by whatever means) can go faster by losing energy and has to gain energy to slow DOWN. Again, the limit is the speed of light but in that case it is the limit of slow.
This is all physics known back in the fifties. Do catch up.
Nope not negative, try agian.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant After All, P... (May '13) 7 hr nakayama 51
Van de Graaff device and common sense in physic... Sun Sorin Cosofret 1
Relativity of Simultaneity May 20 nakayama 29
News On This Day: Marie and Pierre Curie Discover Ra... (Feb '13) May 3 Crazyakts 2
News Happy Birthday, Marie Curie, Discoverer of Radium Apr '15 jady jaylene salzar 1
News Einstein's Universe Turns 100 Apr '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Sorry Einstein, 'spooky' quantum entanglement i... Mar '15 SpaceBlues 1
More from around the web