i_love_burritos

get to the new page quick

lol

bo staves are the [cabbage]

Why is it such a problem ? Well, [cabbage]. I can't really answer that, but imagine if you had a rule known to be true (through many trials and observations) and then you found an exception to that rule. Wouldn't be a "rule" any more really. Why this is a problem... The Special and General Theories of Relativity (I stole this from google) [hide] Einstein published his special theory in 1905 and his general theory in 1916. The special theory applies when no accelerations are involved and its effects become noticeable near the speed of light. The general theory applies when accelerations are involved and in the presence of strong gravitational fields. It explains gravity in terms of the curvature of four dimensional space-time. Principle of Equivalence General relativity is based on the principle of equivalence. The two statements of this principle are logically equivalent; either statement can be used to prove the other. One statement relates to the concept of mass. Mass enters into Newton's second law, which states that the force needed to accelerate an object is proportional to its mass. This mass, the object's resistance to changing its velocity, is the inertial mass. Mass also enters into Newton's law of gravity. The gravitational force acting between two objects is proportional to their masses. This mass is the gravitational mass. Is the inertial mass the same as the gravitational mass? Newton assumed that they were. Considering the question before concluding that they were, led Einstein to the general theory. The principle of equivalence states that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass. From this statement, it is possible to prove the other statement of this principle: Inertial forces are indistinguishable from gravitational forces. An inertial force is the apparent force felt when in an accelerating reference frame. When a car accelerates, the occupants feel pushed back into their seats. No real force is pushing them, but the car they are sitting in, their reference frame, is accelerating. So they feel an apparent inertial force pushing them back into their seats. The principle of equivalence states that it is not possible to distinguish between inertial forces and gravitational forces. Light Affected by Gravity Using the principle of equivalence, Einstein was able to show that light is affected by gravitational forces. To understand Einstein's reasoning, consider two enclosed rooms. One is at rest on the Earth's surface; the other is in space far from any gravitational forces but accelerating at exactly the same rate objects fall near Earth's surface. On Earth, the Earth's gravity causes objects to fall and have weight. In the accelerating room, objects will also fall and apparently have weight because the room is accelerating. It is an accelerating reference frame, so objects in the room experience an inertial force. From the principle of equivalence, it is impossible to distinguish between the gravitational force acting on objects in the room on Earth and the inertial force acting on objects in the accelerating room in space. READ THIS NEXT The Problem of Quantum Gravity Newton's Mechanics, Modern Physics, and the Scientific Method Consider a light beam shining across the accelerating room. Because the room is accelerating the light beam will strike the opposite wall slightly lower than its starting level. Inertial forces acts on the light beam. Because they are not distinguishable from gravitational forces the light beam should experience exactly the same effect in the room near Earth's surface. A gravitational force affects a light beam just as an inertial force does. Geometric Nature of Gravity Light has no mass, so Newtonian gravity predicts light is not affected by gravity. However Einstein concluded that light is affected by gravity and derived a new theory of gravity. Einstein visualized gravity as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time - the three space dimensions and a fourth time dimension. Most of us cannot visualize a curvature of four dimensional space-time, so visualize a curved two dimensional rubber sheet. Placing a mass on the rubber sheet curves it downward like space-time curves in the presence of a mass. On such a rubber sheet a small mass can circle around the curvature produced by a large mass, just as planets orbit the Sun. Or a mass can roll straight downward just as an object falls to the Earth. Einstein explained gravity as a result of the curvature of space-time near the presence of a mass. The differences between general relativity and Newton's law of gravity only become noticeable when the gravitational force is very strong. Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the crowning intellectual achievements of the 20th century and led to such predictions as black holes, gravitational lenses, and the expanding universe. So far it has passed every experimental test with flying colors.[/hide] If you read all that, it states that : 1.) The laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers. 2.) The speed of light in vacuum is independent of the motion of all observers and sources, and is observed to have the same value. If you found something that can go faster than light it would violate the theory of relativity. Then you go into all types of scenarios with particles that have imaginary mass, can go backwards in time etc etc etc. I'm not too sure of the details but essentially it'd be a headache for everyone. I'll have to do more reading. The talk is here : http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486?ln=en. EDIT: From my last post, add in a couple of zeros behind the error margin. The people working on that OPERA project apparently have checked/ rechecked and examined every real source of a possible error and still get a 6 sigma significance value. (The chance that their results are wrong are about 6 standard deviations away from the expected, i.e. it's about a 1 in billion chance that they've done something wrong - which is why they're asking other physicists now. Looks like it might actually be valid.) Also in the paper they said the fired around 16,000 neutrinos (16,000 events, with around 10^20 proton events) to try and eliminate any STATISTICAL error. Since these are really small, really fast, particles it's quite hard to measure each individually so they're using a statistical method - a probability density function of a distribution of events (i.e. the neutrinos arriving at a point, in a certain amount of time. Note the blind calibrations.) They've even attempted to separate the arrival of the neutrinos based on their energy dependence (high vs low) and haven't found any difference haha. (All the things I've said come from page 3 and 7, figures 4, 8, 13 and table 2.) also, tl;dr speed of light tied up with many other constants such as the passage of time, the concept of time and space itself.

yah plural is ok

I think 6 minutes is a record.

Smith would make Marx his [bleep].

i called you a [bleep] btw

[bleep]

NOT CENSORED?!

sup [bleep]

Just so you all realize, this is a huge claim, which requires some very very hard evidence. (why most scientists are taking the side of skepticism right now) Here's the paper if anyone feels like wading through it. General and Special relativity have been PROVEN for the last 100 years to be empirically true, and Einstein's theories aren't just going to be invalidated with this result. Understand that if a particle did happen to travel faster than the speed of light, it be a quantum (hurrrr) shift in current model of physics. Newtonian physics wasn't laid to waste over a period of 20 years when Einstein developed special and general relativity, it's just that it literally changed our way of thinking about the universe. The current position that the CERN scientists have taken (from what I've read) is "uhhh we don't know what the [bleep] to think about this, everyone here? yeah let's just talk." They use GPS satellites to get somewhat accurate measurement - however got a 10ns error. Found that the neutrinos were travelling about ~0.0025% faster and got a 6sigma standard deviation. That's a +/- 0.0004% error. Most likely a "systematic error". If it was an accurate result then, physicists are going to be studying this for generations. (The project took 3 years, they're not going to replicate it so easy.) Also, c is a hard limit, meaning that either (particles can go faster than the speed of light and light is being impeded by something - ridiculous). Also look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experiment

Probably got the (misleading) results from a "good" margin of error. It was like 0.00025% difference. They'll have to do it again for any credence.

need beer so hot outside oh god

Keep on truckin' (being Asian).

:thumbdown:

yes. that's why I said, they're everywhere.

college (organic) chem is pretty cool. also, you were complaining about beer-lambert ? logs, get used to them. they're EVERYWHERE

LOL 8 PAGES?! NO WAIIII bro that's way too much. you show him.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31902.wss

It's the SMH which I hate with a passion, but the paper is from Nature (probably the most important peer-reviewed scientific journal today), so eh. That's pretty cool. There's similiar things too, IBM (world community grid) and multiple american universities have software which uses your computer to model certain folding proteins / cancer cures etc. (It runs all the time in the background and then sends the "results" back to them.) Example; http://folding.stanford.edu/

peepz hate cuz i hustle n' shuffle everyday. [bleep] da haterz brah. (Who the hells says "haters.") - If someone hates you for no reason, give them a reason to hate you (or ignore them, this works best).

Girls in Uniforms!@!@!@!@@!@ Seriously though, i dig it. I can't wait to get to Uni. Girls in lab coats are A+. I'm 3/3 for cuties as lab partners this semester and that alone will make these next 3-4 months fantastic :thumbup: . It's a great feeling when you spend 4 hours with a person without checking them out (they're pretty much 100% covered up, and you're mostly looking down a microscope anyways), talking about smart and nerdy stuff. Then, after you're both exhausted and leave the lab, she takes off her big lab coat and you finally see her figure.. SCHWIING! Then for the rest of the semester you're essentially raping her through her labcoat with your eyes :^_^: I dunno luck of the draw I guess. Some girls it stops just below the waist, so labcoats arent too much of a buzzkill. But hah, Australia for the next 6 months - it's either super short shorts, short skirts or something skin tight, never really 100% covered up. Oh microscopes, are annoying, fo sho. molecular bio ~ 70% standing around waiting for [cabbage] to centrifuge / incubate / ____erases gun' ___erize. Plenty of time time to "talk" hahar. I can empathize if you're an ass-man, labcoats get in the way. :thumbdown: (for the prudes; it's been fun reducing women to a short list of physical attributes, dont preach) ^uniforms :thumbup:

goddamnit girls in lab coats are so hot. now that warmer weather is here, lab sessions will be even better. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: