Offline
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1
what the fuck am i reading?
Forum
Off Topic speed of light borkd?
speed of light borkd?
15 replies
1 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1
what the fuck am i reading?
And just a year before I plan on taking physics.
Damn speed of light! Raise your limit.
Anyway, I've always thought that the speed of light was not the ultimate limit. However, this now completely fucks up EVERYTHING if it is true. Like the relationship between frequency and wave length..
lim {x to zero} ( 3/x ).
Second: Yeah, there are many things which are faster than speed of light. But they don't carry information. Everything that carries information has the maximum speed of speed of light (as far as scientists know. I still believe in travelling faster than the speed of light. Perhaps it doesn't work in our dimension, but it might be that it works in the 5th dimension? I don't know)
But then you get infinite/negative infinite, dont you? anyway its not a genuine mathematical value given when 'division' by 0 occors.
Anyways I am going to the LHC this fall so it's going to be good
Nice to see speed of light is not the fastest speed out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9e5YTcwF9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIcevk665II
ohaz has writtenbut it might be that it works in the 5th dimension? I don't know)
rather improbable, since the 5th dimension doesn't carry any information whatsoever.
I personally think that those 60ns are just a measurement fault. Not that I don't believe in travel faster than the speed of light or even faster than time, but I just think that those 60ns don't quite prove that Einstein was wrong yet.
Ontopic: If something was to go at the speed of light, that object should just tear apart, shouldn't it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
1/0 = X*0=1 1/0 = Undefined And 0/0 = X*0=0 0/0 = Indeterminate
Speed of light is probably possible, but our technology doesn't have the proof or advancements yet.
pupp3tStudios has writtenIf something was to go at the speed of light, that object should just tear apart, shouldn't it?
THAT is just what scientists tought for over 100 years..
Which means E does not equal M times C squared..
1