Is this actually the CTYI??

LegacyUser

As in Center for Talented Youth in Ireland, or am I completlely wrong??

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

no you're comperletely right!!!!!(ding ding ding ding ding)
you've just won yourself..........a whole herd of zebras!!!on "The Boards Are Right" Show(tm)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by qwidgybo (edited 08-05-2001).]

LegacyUser

For students, lecturers, or a free for all

lol

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

Didn't the sickened sense of humour give it away?

I don't know of any lecturers here, but to my knowledge anyone's welcome. If I'm right, we had some non-CTYIers for a while. Until they got bored (or sickened) into leaving!

LegacyUser

ooh we're free for all eh?
then who let fiona gillan in here?!

ahem.
who are you nesf?
deirdre

LegacyUser

a lecturer, but I'm also a student at UCC..

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

I'm a lecturer too!!

I've just done my third lecture on making the internet go faster!! Seriously!

And the principle/form master didn't show up this time either. It went great.

}:>

Do you care?

Didn't think so

LegacyUser

Step 1: Move to a country with a decent asdl/etc network.

Step 2: We'll leave this for homework kids

Physics myself

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

No, it involved making light go faster than c and replacing all of the Fiber Optics and routers in the world, but its still actually possible and feesible!

}:>

BTW, what's a nesf?

LegacyUser

Physics? I have a very strange physics teacher. He showed us a programme he had recorded off National Geographic about crop circles. One guys theory went something like this "I saw these trees and there shadows were overlapping and then it dawned on me! They were making a 60 degree angle - hence crop circles are actually places where the space time continuum has torn and had to be fixed! Crop circles are necessary to patch up the space time continuum!" Odd fellow I'd say.

But, yes! I just discovered that I have no more school until September! Aren't I great?

And I have the best solution for making light travel faster... it involves manipulating time and it's mine! MINE! BWAHAHAHA!

LegacyUser

Um, actually the light travelling faster is what manipulates the time. Soz.

}:>

LegacyUser

I know that...but I was tired and bored and wanted to say something and ...
"Arr! I don't know what I'm doin'"

LegacyUser

>a lecturer, but I'm also a student at UCC..

what are you lecturing in at ctyi dis summer?
will you bring balloons and jelly tots into class?

deirdre

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by imp:
No, it involved making light go faster than c and replacing all of the Fiber Optics and routers in the world, but its still actually possible and feesible!

}:>

BTW, what's a nesf?</font>

First the light doesn't travel faster than c, its a relativistic effect combined with measuring the phase angle etc

a nesf, is short for nesferatu, which is a misspelling of nosferatu, which was an attempted joke of a mate of mine on a website.

Long story

LegacyUser

Actually the light pulse was accelerated to 107% of c. See nature.com

}:>

LegacyUser

Relativistically.

Light cannot travel faster than c, it only appears to do so. e.g. you can "slow" light by passing it through a caesiam gas field, but from the perspective of the light it is travelling at c.

Depends totally on what your interested in though. e.e. you want your information to travel faster than light, this can be done, I'm only interested in the physics of the problem. In other words, we;re both correct from our individual perspectives

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

c is simply the definite speed of light in a vacuum. In a vacuum, no light can be accelerated or slowed beyond c. However, in the real world, it can be slowed by obstructions (e.g. almost anything, but sodium's particularly good), or refracted by things like caesium thereby accelerating it beyond c. In general, light usually travels at about 99.99999% of c.

}:>

LegacyUser

I must disagree, c is the true speed of light in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. a frame where no acceleration is present).

I've no good HTML links, but take my word for it, the speed of light is constant. It's merely a trick to make it appear different. e.g. in refraction, a basic definition is that the co.eff. is the ration of the speed of light in the 2 medias, but in reality, it is constant in both seperate frames of reference, i.e. from the perspective of the glass, for example, the light is moving at c within it and faster than c outside it.

I think where you're making your misinterpretation is in that you are choosing a preferred frame of reference, i.e. where you are standing, but this only leads to error. It is a basic postulate of the relativity principle that there is no preferred frame of reference.


Then again this is pure semantics.

LegacyUser

You all sicken me.

Up apathy!

On that note, I think Nesf and Deirdre are right! As far as my memory serves me, light always travels at a constant and it's just your perception that changes.

Or something. I really haven't looked up much on light.

LegacyUser

just thought i should contribute-i haven't been paying much attenttion lately. and by the way my sister is lovely.

LegacyUser

btw do u all no who i am now? ah **** hate that

LegacyUser

In the Theories of Relativity (and before that), c was defined by Albert Einstein as the constant, unchangeable speed of light while travelling in a vacuum. I've done a project on the Theories of Relativity and one which focuses partially on the acceleration experiment. I obtained an original scanned copy of the theories and Einstein's speech and notes concerning them (in German), and also an English translation. And it does seem to be on my side.

}:>

LegacyUser

now listen...
if 1 has a laser gun that shoots light faster than the speed of c
the light will travel back in time and so you will see the effects before you shoot
so if you are about to kill someone and you see them dying b4 you shoot and decide not to shoot, what happens?
remember they are already feeling the effects


BARF

LegacyUser

That is what is called causality. Fortunately its only regular light pulses and beams that they've done this to and also the results aren't enough that it cold be visibly seen that the light had finished before starting.

}:>

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by imp:
In the Theories of Relativity (and before that), c was defined by Albert Einstein as the constant, unchangeable speed of light while travelling in a vacuum. I've done a project on the Theories of Relativity and one which focuses partially on the acceleration experiment. I obtained an original scanned copy of the theories and Einstein's speech and notes concerning them (in German), and also an English translation. And it does seem to be on my side.

}:></font>

On the other hand I'm studying physics in college, I take relativity as a subject, therefore I believe I can claim to have a better understanding of relativity, but I won't assume it correct as relativity can be very non-sensical at times

All I say to you is that you are thinking along the wrong lines, there is no preferred frame of reference.

See above posts ;D

Mwahahahhaha etc et al.

---

Stephen Hawking: "Your idea of a donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer. I may have to steal it"

LegacyUser

hmmmmm you all seem to know a lot about icky things like light and how it moves-does anything feel like impersonating me on the 18th of june when im meant to be doing my physics exam???no-one would notice, im sure we'd get away with it.

LegacyUser

Just go to http://www.nature.com/ and look through the bucketloads of articles they have on the experiments to slow and accelerate light. I think you'll see that I am in fact, correct.

I do realise that as a physics student you should have a very good understanding of relativity, but you do seem to be wrong so chekc out Nature.

}:>

LegacyUser

Yet again Ian is wrong. Yet again he refuses to accept it.

IT'S NOT CUTE ANYMORE!

Nesf, you have my deserved respect. Or you would if either of us existed (don't ask).

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lordsippa:
Yet again Ian is wrong. Yet again he refuses to accept it.

IT'S NOT CUTE ANYMORE!

Nesf, you have my deserved respect. Or you would if either of us existed (don't ask).</font>

Firstly LOL Again depends on your frame of reference, secondly Ian, take my word on it, physics article like that are not truly scientific, for example, i saw the cosmic string theory in a newspaper 5 years after it had been disproved!!!

A change of topic might be a good idea. Keep up the interest in physics though, its an excellent hobby/profession. But I feel I'm just a little biased in saying that

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
A change of topic might be a good idea. </font>

i agree wholeheartedly

so the simpsons,anywho!!

LegacyUser

Well, the paper-report type thing I did was examined by two pretty good physicists, neither of whom saw any problem with the whole "light acceleration" thing. And they're pretty smart. So they are.

Maybe we'll continue this "discussion" at CTYI.

}:>