Sep 232011
 

I don’t know what sort of doctor West Galway coroner Ciarán McLoughlin is.  For all  I know, he might be a witch-doctor or a saw doctor.  One way or another, though, judging by a statement he made in a case of human combustion, Dr McLoughlin is no scientist.  Summing up his findings in the tragic death of Michael Faherty whose body was found completely burnt while the rest of the room was relatively undamaged, he said

This fire was thoroughly investigated and I’m left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation.

Well, that wraps it up then, doesn’t it?  It must have been a death ray from a flying saucer.

I find that this has no explanation, apart from aliens or Blacke Magicke, says the West Galway coroner, handing out pitchforks. ‘Tis witche crafte.

The coroner decided that he was dealing with a case of spontaneous combustion because the geniuses who investigated the incident said there was no source of ignition.  They ruled out the open fireplace even though Mr Faherty’s remains were found next to it.  For some reason, they also chose not to consider the possibility that he might have been using matches or a lighter, although how they could establish this is a mystery.  Of course, the reality is that neither the Guards not the Fire Officers are experts in fire investigation for a very simple reason.  They don’t investigate enough fires.  Ireland is a very small country and most fires don’t warrant investigation, which means that neither police nor fire service get much experience in these matters.  Therefore, the word of these experts counts for very little.

Either way, Dr McLoughlin decided that Mr Faherty must have somehow burst into flames, and on that basis came up with a conclusion of monumental stupidity.

I wonder what else he considered.  Zombie attacks?  Pyro, the X-Man?  Yog Sotthoth?  Voodoo?  This man was murdered with a headless chicken!

I have a little bit of information for Dr McLoughlin.  Human combustion has been well documented for years.  It happens to overweight people who accidentally become unconscious, perhaps due to alcohol or because they trip and knock themselves out.  If there happens to be a naked flame in the vicinity and clothing catches fire, the fabric acts like a wick and the person burns away just like a candle, causing very little damage to the surrounding area.

Can this man, who believes some things have no explanation, really be a physician and not a doctor of divinity?  Is medicine not based on scientific principles?

Compare this stupidity with the attitude of scientists at CERN who may have stumbled across particles that travel faster than light.  If true, this discovery will require a major revision of Einsteinean physics which in turn had itself revolutionised Newtonian physics.  We’re talking time travel here — that’s how major this could be.

Are the CERN reasearchers saying there’s no explanation for what they observed?  No.

Are they saying they found something that goes faster than light?

No.  They’re saying they haven’t yet found out the answer.  They’re saying it might all be due to a fault in the way they set up their tests, and they’ve released their measurements for scrutiny by the wider scientific community.  In other words, they’re holding off on judgement until other people have a chance to examine their methods in detail and find whatever flaws exist.  Then and only then might they publish something.

And then, we’ll see the scientific approach doing what it always does.  Using the new information to improve its understanding of how Nature works.

That’s what science is all about.

We can leave magic to the priests and death rays to the coroners.  Of course since the Geneva discovery implies the existence  of time travel, there’s always the possibility that a Terminator did it.

  48 Responses to “Spontaneous Human Combustion in Galway. Refining Einstein in Geneva.”

Comments (47) Pingbacks (1)
  1.  

    I’m a bit surprised at some people. A load of people are reporting the news of the apparent breaking of ‘c’, and are being very neutral in their reporting. What I find interesting about this is how it makes them seem to be hedging their bets.

    This is amazing! It would be like a waterfall being found to flow backwards, and people reporting on it with no sense of wonderment or disbelief in their voices.

    Is it that people, when confronted by “deep” science stuff, suddenly have no opinions about whether what they’re seeing is bullshit or not, and are left to “wait and see”?

    Personally, I’m not afraid to step forward and say: someone made a mistake. Maybe the measurement between start and finish is off, or when someone said “synchronise watches”, one of them was a few billionths of a second off, but /someone/ made a mistake.

    Of course, if it turns out I’m wrong, and >c travel /is/ possible, then I will buy a hat and then cook it and eat it.

    as for spontaneous combustion. I have three words that sum up that kind of deduction: “god did it”.

  2.  

    The researchers themselves are hinting that they probably made an error of measurement.

  3.  

    “Of course, if it turns out I’m wrong, and >c travel /is/ possible, then I will buy a hat and then cook it and eat it.”

    I presume you meant you will eat a hat, cook it and then buy it :)

  4.  

    What is all this guff about the speed of light? The numbers aren’t as big as you might think…

    I was messing about with a laser earlier, one of the ones that spins in a circle to produce a line on the wall or a dot if you like, builders use them to project lines or to check levels on building sites.
    I was watching this spin and projecting a line onto my garage wall earlier when being a geek as the nickname suggests, I began to wonder how fast the dot was actually moving as it sped along the wall and appeared to turn into a line.

    It relates to two things, the speed of revolution and the distance to the wall or object that the laser is hitting.

    A little bit of research produces the following formula to work it out :

    Average speed =distance/time, and in the case of a circle = circumference/time.
    The circumference of any circle can be calculated from the radius according to the equation: Circumference = 2*pi*Radius

    Combining these two equations above will lead to a new equation relating the speed of an object moving in uniform circular motion to the radius of the circle and the time to make one cycle around the circle (period).

    =(2*Pi*R)/T

    where R represents the radius of the circle and T represents the period (amount of time between revolutions).

    A quick google produces the following:
    the speed of light = 299,792,458 m / s
    Picking a nice radius that we can all relate to:
    Radius of Earth = 6,378,100 meters
    Plugging these into the equations above you get a surprisingly nice little number for the period required, 0.13s approximately which in layman’s terms works out at just under 7.5 revolutions per second.

    Therefore if you were standing in the centre of the earth with a laser pointer and you spin it faster than 7.5 revolutions per second then the dot projected by the laser on the inside of the earths surface would be moving across the inside of the surface faster than the speed of light.
    It’s not that fast……..
    Superman in the 1st movie span around the earth much faster if I recall correctly…….

  5.  

    Just to really bend your brain,

    As the earth revolves around it’s own axis in 24 hrs, this means that you as a person standing on the surface are travelling around in space on this axis at approximately 463 m/s, or 1,667 km/hr.

    Of course the earth is moving around the sun, at an average radius of 150 million kilometers, every 365.256363 mean solar days,
    Therefore the earth itself is moving through space around the sun at a speed of about 29,864 m/second. (107,510 km/hr)

    The earth travels it’s own width (Diameter) in approximately 427 seconds, just over 7 minutes :-)

    For a bigger one, the sun revolves around the centre of our galaxy (Milky Way) and according to Nasa (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html) it does so at approximately 828,000 km/hr.
    Heh, these numbers mean that relatively we are not that far off the mark already :-)

  6.  

    Time travel, killer, maybe i can find my keys.

  7.  

    It may be small, but if they have broken the speed of light it has deep implications. But they haven’t, I can’t say that they haven’t absolutely, but I can say, in the vein of quantum physics, that the probability that they have is vanishingly small. As other people have said, I guess that there is an error somewhere that is unaccounted for. The quantum world can be very strange.

  8.  

    But it’s nice to think they might have, just for a while. I want to believe in the T-1000.

  9.  

    I’d love if they did, it would be the greatest discovery since Einstein’s three papers. I wonder will the machines ever realise that all they have to do is send back terminators to kill them at infancy?
    http://youtu.be/bBBw9E2Q_aY

  10.  

    Let’s not discount the possibility that all of you nay-sayers have been wrong all along. Maybe its God’s way of saying, science isn’t all you believed it to be.

  11.  

    Belief has no place in Science, Brent.

  12.  

    Trent, maybe it’s your way of speaking for a non-existent god. Belief has a place in science fiction, and that’s where I like to keep it.

  13.  

    You are all willing, on some level, to believe that something formerly thought impossible, was possible. Why can’t you accept that you are wrong about the existence of God?

  14.  

    Bock

    Coroners are often members of the legal profession rather than medical doctors.

    As I understand it, the mathematics of Einstein’s work didn’t imply that faster than light travel was impossible, merely that it was impossible to travel AT the speed of light – though how you could reach supraluminal speed without passing through the speed of light is kinda hard to see. But neutrinos are weird.

  15.  

    I sincerely hope your main crust isn’t earned teaching physics.

    It’s true that coroners are often lawyers, and I hope also that Ciaran McLoughlin’s doctorate is in some area unconnected with logic or common sense. Such as law, for instance.

  16.  

    Haha – no, definitely couldn’t teach physics. Tachyons are hypothesised to exist, however, travelling faster than light at all times, and are compatible with special relativity.

  17.  

    Tachyons are imaginary things, which have no relevance.

  18.  

    Watched BBC News earlier and the newscaster commented that neutrinos are massless particles. Eh?

  19.  

    There was a young fellow called Wright
    Who could travel much faster than light
    He started one day in this relative way
    And returned the previous night

  20.  

    Mr. Geek, you smart.
    Not that far off the mark though? Over a billion km per hour is a tad faster than 828,000 km/hr. What’s that as a fraction? My head hurts when there’s too many zeros.
    Bock – comment 15. You mean.

  21.  

    Mr. Geek – shame on you!

    of course, it’s tempting to think that the various rotations add up to a phenomenal speed, but you’re missing out on the most important word in general relativity, and that word is “relativity”.

    when you play ping-pong on a train, and the train is travelling 140kph relative to the train track, if you hit a good 15kph strike, does the ball travel at 15kph, 155kph, or 125kph?

    the answer is: 15kph.

    of course, it’s relative to the medium or “frame” that you are travelling in, so “who the fuck really knows” is possibly the real answer.

    “c” is a value which theoretically can not be broken. at all. good luck trying.

  22.  

    He wouldn’t listen to me.

  23.  

    Yeah, Einstein’s thought experiment was with light reflecting between two different mirrors on two different trains with a passenger observing them on a platform, as far as I can remember. He wondered why the speed of light was constant no matter the frame of reference. What I find amazing, not only the theory, but that it was a complete thought experiment!

  24.  

    Mr. Geek, your reasoning is erroneous. Suppose that the light source is at the centre of a sphere of radius 300000km (c=300000km/s) and there is a bright spot initially at time t=0. Now, suppose the source rotates at 1 revolution per second. If the white spot was at the projection for the duration of this revolution then its speed would be more than 3 times the speed of light (Circumference=2*pi*radius). However, since it takes 1 second for a photon to reach the surface, by the time the source has completed a revolution (1s) none of the photons emitted between times t=0 and t=1 will have reached the surface, so no white dot will have been created. Relativity does not even come into this.

  25.  

    Einstein made it a principle that the speed of light is constant for any observer regardless of their motion relative to the light source. This completely defies common sense, but there was some evidence for it from maxwell’s equations and the michelson-morley experiment. From this principle deductions such as time dilation and length contraction for (relative) moving objects were made.

  26.  

    bnino,
    Your supposition above assumes an instant appearance of the dot on the surface when that in fact is not the case.

    I beg to differ but I state that I am not erroneous,
    Consider that there will be a “lag” naturally for the first dot of light to appear on the surface but once that intial “lag” has taken place there will in fact be a dot travelling along the surface at over the speed of light.
    Consider the “curve” effect that we get if we spin a water hose around in a circle while it is spraying. When you turn off the hose does the water at the end of the spray stop instantly? No it does not. It has already moved out along the tangent and keeps travelling along that tangent until it splashes on the ground. If you take a high speed photo at any given moment what you will see is a “Curve” created by the water spray travelling tangentially while the inital source at the centre has rotated on.

    Look at a side on view of any galaxy. there are curved arms along which matter is still travelling outwards from the intial explosion while the centre is spinning.

    Back to our dot: Once the initial “Lag” takes place while waiting for the first dot of light to hit the surface, it is true that the the source has rotated but all that will happen is that the initial dot is delayed on reaching the surface. Once it gets there and hits, the next piece of original light will have travelled along the circle at the same speed and hits the surface a little later. It is the projection of the dot that is travelling along the surface at greater than the speed of light.
    This “Lag” due to the “slow” speed of light is why we see stars turning into supernovae in our time when in actual fact the stars and supernovae have disappeared many, many millions of years ago, there is a time lag for the light to get to us. Did that light stop travelling when the source stars exploded and disappeared? No, it merely continued travelling until it got to us.

    Again read what I posed.
    I’m not saying that matter is moving faster than light, I’m saying a weightless or massless projection of light is in fact moving faster along the surface than the speed of light.

    Kae, Relativity does not come into this, a laser dot has no weight, is not matter, a massless dot on the inside of the surface is travelling faster than the speed of light, if you want to consider relativity think about someone standing on the surface.

    Again bnino, yourself, Kae and FME above are all missing the original point in any case, what I’m actually saying is that the speed of light is not really that fast. It takes approximately 8 minutes for it to hit us from the sun, a distance of 92M miles or so. All things considered, when you are dealing with the vastness of space out there and the numbers involved in that, the numbers dealing with lightspeed are not that big.

    FME, The factor is in the thousands , consider relatively how many times faster than a snail the Blackbird SR71 travelled at full speed, about the same factor? think about how many times faster a sattelite travels than the same snail. A cheetah can run maybe 100 times faster.
    The factors are not huge, I’ll say it again, the numbers are not that big.

    EDIT : Speed of light in km/hr is 1,079,252,850, speed of light (I’m a donkey) The sun around the centre of the galaxy, is 828,000 km/hr, the multiplication factor is just over 1300.

  27.  

    Kae,
    in regard to the question you posed there are in fact various answers.

    the answer is: 15kph. (If you are on the train moving at 140kph it moves at 15kph relative to you)
    The answer is 155kph relative to you if you are on the ground outside the train as it passes.
    The answer would be 100kph relative to you if you are in a car travelling at 55kph in the same direction as the train.
    If you are motionless outside the earth the answer is in the region of 828,000 km/hr give or take a few, all of the above of course are depending on the direction it was hit, I assumed in the direction of travel of the train.

    “who the fuck really knows” is not the real answer.

  28.  

    The answer is that motion is meaningless without a frame of reference.

  29.  

    Thats correct, the photons are travelling from the laser pointer to the surface at under the speed of light, unless in a vacuum, but the apparent speed of light travelling along the surface may be faster than the speed of light.

  30.  

    But none of this explains how a piece of falling space debris annihilated the Galway county coroner.

  31.  

    Unexplainable. Must be magic.

  32.  

    Nor how we deal with tenses in our beloved english language when time travel becomes possible,
    for intance how would you say that something would have happened in the future if you had gone back and changed it but now won’t (because you didn’t) ?

    You’ll have to create a conditional past-future-imperfect-pluperfect tense for a start :-)

  33.  

    Geek: “Your supposition above assumes an instant appearance of the dot on the surface when that in fact is not the case” – This was not my supposition! I meant that a timer is set at t=0 when photons from the source have reached the surface and the source starts revolving. For subsequent times (t=0 to t=1) the photons will not have time to reach the surface, because the radius of my imaginary sphere is 300000 km, and the source rotates once every second.
    Incidentally, I mistakenly said that the circumference is more than 3 times the radius. It is more than 6 times the radius.
    As for water moving along a tangent from a rotating source, it does no such thing. Water drops (like photons) will continue in their straight-line motion regardless of the motion of the source (unless acted upon by a force – this is Newton’s first law). Photons are massless but are effected by gravity. It is assumed that there are no external forces (including gravity) acting here. The tangential motion is only apparent.

  34.  

    bnino,
    I apologise but in any case it is irrelevant.
    My answer refers to the fact that the light will in fact hit the surface after a period of time which solely depends on how far the surface is from the source. (like our view of a supernova many millions of years after it no longer exists)
    from the intial “switch on” It may take two, three, four seconds or ten hours, or a thousand years if you wish to reach the surface but it will eventually reach the surface because it does not stop travelling in a straight line outwards even if you switch off the source. After that first dot hits the surface then the dot will move around the sphere the same number of times in any given second that the centre source is spinning in any given second. All that changing the size of the sphere does is change the length of time that it takes for any initial particle of light to get from the source to the surface.
    If you start any timer at any stage after the initial dot hits the surface, after the rotation has started the dot will be moving at a constant speed. All that will happen if you start the timer before you start the rotation is a slight delay or lag. At some stage the dot will move around the sphere and it will be moving above the speed of light

    For the purpose of relating the number of revolutions, The size of the imaginary sphere is irrelevant once it gets bigger than the number that I used in the inital supposition (radius of the earth, for the given speed of light, for the calculated period of revolution). in fact the bigger the radius the faster the speed that the dot moves around the circle for any given number of revolutions per second . At a smaller radius, say if my garage if it was a circle of radius 1m, and the period was 1 second (1 revolution per second) then the speed of the dot along the wall is: = (2*Pi*R)/T = 2*3.14*1/1= 6.28 m/second.
    I only picked the radius of the earth as something that was easily considered or graspable to anyones mind and also to end up with a reasonably small number for the period of revolution.
    Pick any radius, plug it into the equation and it will kick out a period of revolution for any given required speed of travel of the dot.
    Yes, The light moves in a straight line, this is why it will hit the starting point at any moment you wish to take as the start.
    The curve and tangents I refer to only describes how an overhead plan view of the water (or ray of light) appears at any snapshot in time.
    Click this :
    http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sprinkler.jpg
    for an example of what I meant.
    On a large enough scale to cope with the speed of travel involved directly away from the source, if we took an instant snaphot from overhead, the ray of light would appear to curve and produce what I call a “tangential” curve in a similar fashion to that which the water from the sprinkler in that photo does.
    EDIT: In fact it is more like the curve related to the fibonacci sequence. http://whofortedblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fibonaccispiral.jpg

  35.  

    Okay,
    Bnino, I’m not picking on you,
    I’m obviously not explaining myself too well
    and you are the only one that bothered to take me up on this is all.

    I did a little sketch on this (living up to the nickname)
    explaining exactly what I mean by the tangential curve I mention above.

    The following pictures linked to assume that the sphere on the outside is far enough away that it takes 6 seconds for the light to get there from the source and that the laser is rotating at 1 revolution every 6 seconds (arbitrary numbers to make it easy to draw).
    the first one is an overhead snapshot after 6 seconds, the line in red is the shape of the light ray as seen from overhead.
    http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/after-6-seconds.jpg

    The second one is a snapshot taken after 7 seconds.
    http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/after-7-seconds.jpg

    Please forgive the curve, it is an approximation constructed of arcs, it would in fact look more like the fibonacci curve especially as you get nearer the inside but It was quick.
    I hope that this explains what I mean.
    The second one is how it would look one second later, everything having moved around by 60 degrees..

    EDIT:
    This one shows the sequence from 0 to 5 seconds:
    http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1-to-5-seconds.jpg

    This final one shows the complete sequence from 6 to 12 seconds where the dot is moving around the inside of the sphere:
    http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/6-to-12-seconds.jpg

    After 12 seconds of course the dot repeats the circle ad infinitum until someone turns off the laser at which point the dot will move for a further 6 seconds around the sphere until the dot goes off at the point on the sphere along the direction that the laser was pointing, at the moment it was turned off.

  36.  

    My own confusion with the tangents is due to the fact that a water sprinkler uses a jet at right angles to create the circular force used to spin it, the laser has it’s own source of motion to create the spin therefore can actually be pointing straight.

  37.  

    @ The Geek: Your query about the laser beam projected on the surface of the earth from the centre is a fascinating question. I suspect that it may be something to do with the speed of the beam of light toward the surface being less than the (theoretical) speed of the of the projected “dot” along its path inside the sphere. The light not being delivered fast enough to make it possible for a continuos light trail around the inside of the sphere is the main issue here. I think either the beam would bend and the projected dot would trail further and further behind or the dot would appear as intermittant (Very fast) flashes along its path. Either way the speed of the beam would not be fast enough to deliver a smooth trail.

  38.  

    Geek: I chose the radius of the sphere to be 300000km so that light would take 1 second to reach the surface. The mathematical projection would indeed travel more than 6 times the speed of light, but the photons that left the source (rotating at 1 rev per sec.) would not reach the surface within 1 sec.

    You can indeed create a white dot that appears to move faster than light.
    Fire a photon to a distance of 300000km. It will take 1s to reach a target at that distance. 1 millisecond (.001s) after firing the first photon, fire a photon in the opposite direction to another target 300000km away. Would you argue that information has traveled between the struck targets at much greater than the speed of light (600000km/.001s=600000000km/s)?
    Your diagrams are beautiful and interesting (as is anything connected to the Fibonnaci sequence). I just don’t think that they are relevant to the question of supra-luminal speed.

    Jethro Tull: The contemporary view on light (or any electromagnetic radiation) is that it is a stream of particles called photons. The wave nature of light means that each photon’s motion is guided by a complex valued function known as the wave function. “Complex” refers to complex numbers i.e. numbers that contain the square root of minus 1.
    This function or wave is analogous to a crime wave i.e. where, (and when) the amplitude is high the probability of a photon being there (or crime committed) is high. The bizarre difference is that the committing of a crime is something that happens independently of being observed, whereas the presence of a photon at a particular place and time is meaningless until a measurement is made! This is still the mainstream (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    The white dot would appear intermittently and would consist of “new” photons. (Actually all photons of the same frequency are identical)
    In the contemporary view, photons are mass-less so by F=ma (Newton’s second law) these particles are not amenable to forces and so particles in the beam should continue with their original velocity. Interestingly, gravity bends light beams like as if they have mass. I assumed that gravity is not involved here.

  39.  

    Brino,

    The mathematical projection of course requires a non-stop coninuous stream of light which according to current theory is not what actually happens? Is this correct?
    Moving the dot faster than light speed in a non continuous stream of light as you both describe would then result in intermittent packets hitting the surface with gaps in between the packets at whatever period the waves of probability are low.

    But my point stands in regard to the distance to the target being irrelevant in the case of a continuous stream of light (if that is what a light ray is). if the speed of rotation of the source was twice as fast all that would happen is that the source would have rotated for two revolutions before the initial point of light, rope, water gets to the surface and after that with a coninuous flow the dot would be coninuous.
    At some time in the case of a coninuous stream of light, rope, water or anything else without interference from external forces, the end of the ray, rope, water spray would hit the surface of the sphere and would then after that scribe a continuous dot or point of contact along that surface.

    The thing falls down of course when light is not a continuous ray.

    However apart from this interesting discussion on the side, the initial point was in regard to the size and nature of the numbers involved and the fact that they are relatively not that large in comparison to the vastness of space and the numbers involved in that.

    Jethro, the diagrams above prove the point that I’m trying to make that the ray of anything does not in fact fall behind at all, the motion is along the radius at the initial velocity towards the surface, there is in fact no motion of any particular point in any other direction except in a straight line towards the surface in the direction that the source was pointing at at the time it left, and that after the initial lag time for whatever is being fired to get to the surface, then from that point on the point of contact, dot whatever, being transcribed along the surface is continuous. This of course requires a continuous feed which is where the problem appears to lie in the case of a light ray which is where we are with Bninos argument.

  40.  

    Geek: “However apart from this interesting discussion on the side, the initial point was in regard to the size and nature of the numbers involved and the fact that they are relatively not that large in comparison to the vastness of space and the numbers involved in that” – I agree. A point especially well worth making in regards to the vast distances of extra-solar planets from earth.
    The traditional problem with supra-luminal speeds is the fact that the nature of space and time are caught up with c. Time slows and length contracts when an object approaches c. The Lorentz equations also predict infinite mass, time slowing to zero, and length contracting to zero as an object approaches c. There is much evidence for all of this.

    “The thing falls down of course when light is not a continuous ray”-Precisely! Light consists of discrete particles (photons) travelling with identical speeds so you will not get a continuous feed.

    Yes, of course the distance to the target is irrelevant. I chose the given distance and time of revolution to simplify the calculations in making a point about the speed of the non-substantial mathematical projection and the substantial white dot.

  41.  

    Having read this entire thread I now need a drink.

  42.  

    I just consulted my brother on this (who has a degree in physics) and he gave this very logical explanation without trying to impress with scientific lingo, diagrams or equations:
    The dot itself is not moving around the sphere’s surface, it is a different dot or photon each time. The only movement (of light) is from the tip of the laser to the shell. The dot only appears to move. When you shine a torch on the wall and move it. The spot appears to move but it’s not the same light. You are not dragging the light around so to speak.
    He also said: If you point into the sky and move your finger an inch you have traversed galaxies. The theoretical dot you are pointing at has zoomed at billions of times the speed of light. But nothing physical has moved at this speed.

  43.  

    I think my post above agrees with what bnino50 is saying. Its the only logical conclusion really.

  44.  

    Jethro,

    I’m not trying to impress anyone with anything, I have a degree as well but I’m not flaunting it. And the diagrams were as much to get the picture clear in my own head as they were to try to explain my proposal to anyone else. I’m sorry if it came across as not being logical , I tried to keep the lingo as unscientific as possible, I’m a great believer in plain english, that’s my failing :-).

    It is just an interesting discussion isn’t it? If current theory regarding packets of photons and probabilities is true then we will more than likely get get a dotted line or on/off/on/off dot travelling along the surface, with the off become more prevalent, the faster we move along. It’s not as if we could really see something moving at that speed with our 22 or 23 frames a second eyes anyway.
    Regarding the laser in my garage, the light seems to get dimmer the faster that it moves around the circle But I suspect that is more to do with the capabilities of our eyes than anything else.
    Hey look, I just posed it initially as a way to define the size of numbers involved, not to try to brek the speed of light, nothing real is actually moving except the laser in the centre. It’s all a piece of fun.

  45.  

    @Geek the comment wasn’t intended as a dig at you or anyone else. I apologise if you took it that way. Anyway, yes it is an interesting discussion and my view is that the dot moving around the inside of the hypothetical sphere is moving faster than light. This, however, is not an infringement of the laws of physics because the dot is a different dot as it moves on. The original query has no more meaning than if I took a laser and pointed it at say the Andromeda galaxy and then swung my arm in an arc towards the Pleiades cluster. The dot will have moved millions of light years in seconds but the flow of light is always from laser to target and would have remained constant.

  46.  

    http://io9.com/5860744/new-data-confirms-neutrinos-are-still-traveling-faster-than-light

    “Now, the scientists, with collaborators, have completed a second, fine-tuned version of their experiment — and the team’s findings still stand. What happens now?”

    urp!

  47.  

    If modern physics has been overturned, that’s wonderful. Science is reborn. More investigation.

Leave a Reply