• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

just a thought about relativity...

M

Mday

Lifer
if you do a problem at relativistic speeds, and use 3.0x10^8 as the value of c, well

YOU JUST VIOLATED A PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY...

since the speed of light is 2.998x10^8

hehee

funny huh...
 


<< if you do a problem at relativistic speeds, and use 3.0x10^8 as the value of c, well

YOU JUST VIOLATED A PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY...

since the speed of light is 2.998x10^8

hehee

funny huh... >>


Technicalities, technicalities. Is the speed of light really a nice round number like 2.9998x10^8?
 
Depends on your significant figures as well. The percent difference between those two numbers is 0.067%, which is pretty darned low for any statistical significance anyhow.

Also, 2.998e-8 isn't correct either. There are lots of digits past that, so therefore by rounding up to 2.998e-8 you just violated relativity.

And, I think they have taken a few photons past the speed of light. In space there is a mild resistance; space does have substance (a few months ago PopSci had some issue about future space travel and one of them was that solar sail thing). So, if in a pure noble gas vacum you may be able to exceed the speed of light as found in space.

Or, something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top