What is Digg?511 Comments
- RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/10/2007, -27/+326Buried as Inaccurate! You have no idea how excited I was.
- xShad0w, on 10/10/2007, -3/+242"You can't travel faster then the speed of light, thats impossible" "Not at all, thats why scientists changed the speed of light in 2241" - futurama quote
- forumz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+199Einstein said nothing with MASS can travel faster than the speed of light.
- silverchrysalis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+186'claim to have demonstrated the possibility' and truly physically accomplishing are two different things
- Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+148Wake me when they break LUDICROUS SPEED.
- DSGalvin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+139Thus is Digg...you have no idea how many times I've been fooled into thinking that Bush is going to be impeached "like really soon".
- wierdaaron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+131Hasn't anybody ever seen the Neverending Story series? Everybody knows that darkness travels faster than light.
- aresef, on 10/10/2007, -6/+128Why's it matter when all we really need is 88 miles per hour?
- rhylan, on 10/10/2007, -21/+137All you folks at Microsoft pay attention - if these guys reckon they can fire particles faster than the speed of light i'm sure you lot can make windows run a little faster...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+98Still not as interesting as particles sending information back in time to themselves...
- MaruLono, on 10/10/2007, -3/+88dugg for a giant portrait of einstein and only 2 paragraphs actual text
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+73Don't forget Microsoft is on the verge of bankruptcy and collapsing and Firefox has nearly 734% marketshare.
- MackPrime, on 10/10/2007, -6/+64they simply rub cheetah blood on a regular light particle.
- christianjb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+61Nobel prize magnitude discoveries are generally announced in Nature or Science. Not the Daily Mail.
Forgive me if I reserve judgment until I get to read the actual paper and see the results reproduced. - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+46I came in here hoping it wasn't a lame explanation of Cherenkov radiation. Seems good enough for me--they went farther in the same time as something going the speed of light. I agree it's not "spectacular," but it's cool. I guess the headline's a bit misleading, but I still found it digg-worthy :)
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37Ron Paul will make it happen, vote Ron 2008
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35It's plaid.
- strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34You need to send MATTER faster than the speed of light. Sending energies and light faster than 180,000 MPS isn't amazing, new, or outside Einstein's theories.
The problem is that as you send matter faster and faster it becomes more massive, it will eventually become infinitely massive as it hits the speed of light. However, theoretically you could bend space time as to make local space not really moving relative to say the space ship in it, while moving the entire thing through space-time. Theoretically it is possible to move faster than the speed of light relative to another object, but as to have an object move faster than the speed of light relative to local space I don't think will EVER be possible.
ALSO Einsteins theories allow for teleportation of matter quite easily, however any large amount of matter takes such a ridiculous amount of power to re-create that it's not worth the effort. Same theory can be used in a similar real-life invention like Star Trek's "replicators".
"Followers of Tesla", pssh please as far as I know about Tesla, him and Einstein were in totally different fields of research, and science isn't about FOLLOWING people. - MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -2/+32I'm surrounded by *****.
- Cykaos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31but.. but... I learned about theoretical quantum physics from wikipedia!!!
- mrex9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29They made a flux capacitor?
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27What? Diggers talk out their ass on a variety of complicated subjects that they know nothing about?
You must be new here. - Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+35Well, you're in luck. scientist actually HAVE broken the speed of light. Not only that, but they've successfully teleported particles from one location to another. Einstein was wrong a looong time ago, as any follower of Tesla already knows.
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/speed_of_light.html
Eureka! Scientists break speed of light
June 4, 2000 NEC Research Institute in Princeton
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, Times Newspapers Ltd
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39158006,00.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news77821847.html
I don't remember the exact article and program it was on when they found that scientists broke the speed of light, but it was conclusive. But, like a lot of things, kept relatively tame and quiet... I wonder why. - andrewsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24"I'm having one of those...you know...headaches with pictures."
"Oh, you mean an idea fry?" - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24im in the past killing my grandfather
- SuperFarStucker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20first link sounds like superluminal phase velocity. Nothing spectacular, because neither information or energy can be transmitted.
- TearsofaClown, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22probably a misunderstanding of the effects of the photons on the prisms...but then again, maybe they really are on to something. Very exciting.
- usherzx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18prove it
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17 But then it would be a TIME PARADOX
- bagboyrebel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16well all you need to do that is a ham radio and an aurora.
- Chicken001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Due to mass increase law, if anything has mass traveling the speed of light it will increase. This is in direct relation to time dilation and length contraction. E = MC^2 means that anything has mass cannot exceed the speed of light, if it does exceed the speed of light, the mass will turn into pure energy because it has no mass. That means mass and energy is interchangeable. In other words, I upped you.
- Hardcore41, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17You cant send light faster then the speed of light. Because whatever speed it is traveling is the speed of light.
- Bobius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18No, that's what being a magical fairy is all about.
- Nija, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17What is the speed of IN the prism?
What is the speed of tunneling across the prism?
"photons reflected off the ... prism" - are they reflecting or diffracting?
I stop here - I hate media science articles, they suck. - mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14No it's always proving itself slightly more right then before. There's a difference.
- DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Nothing is impossible, if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12cause a guy named "Jonneh" on digg.com said so!
- Virak, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18I came in here hoping it wasn't something going from point A to point B in less time than light in a vacuum going in a straight line would take but without actually increasing its speed being misrepresented yet again as "ZOMG BREAKING THE SPEED OF LIGHT OLOLOLOL" by high school dropouts.
I'm not quite so pleased as you are. - Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Welcome to Digg? Welcome to the planet ***** Earth.
- dacheetah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11No, Microwave = Light.
Microwave ≠ Visible Light.
Anything in the electromagnetic spectrum can be refered to as light.
Everything in the electromagnetic spectrum travels at the same speed (in a vacuum, c ≈ 2.9979m/s), and exhibits the same wave(ray)/particle(photon) duality, the ony difference being the wavelenth/energy. - FunkyLlama, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Welcome to Digg.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10From the wiki:
"While relativity holds that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. "
Cherenkov radiation only breaks the speed of light in the medium it's in, not C, which is the speed of light in a vaccuum. It even plainly states that C holds for the speed of light in a vaccuum. FAIL! - wonkavsn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Fool me once, shame on... you... Fool me.............. We'll... we can't be fooled again.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Yeah... No point reading new research... What would be the point in that??!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Why?
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You wouldn't be able to tell if time stopped because it would stop and you would also freeze. FAIL.
- Secret7000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11My god. The Daily Mail drops itself another couple of notches on the intellectual food chain - it now exists between The Dandy and Carbon Poles Monthly.
- awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Oh, this is heavy.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You didn't know that every single digger here is an expert in every single subject?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 505 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is