SWG Tales

Yesterday I was lissening to KABC, talk radio. Between radio hosts this guy Paul Harvey does a 15 minute new break. I usually change the station and lissen to music but I was writing something and desided to leave it there. Half way through he told of something that made my jaw drop. I haven't been able to confirm it (since I have no idea where to look) and if any of you know where to look let me know so I can search.

Now for the jaw droping news.

Some scientist in Germany, I believe, made light go faster than light. Shortly after they figure out how to slow it and how to even stop it. If this is true then alot of theroies in astromony have gone out the window considering that alot of it is based off the assuption that 1) nothing can travel faster than light, and 2) that the speed of light is always consant. This also means that faster than light travel is scientificly probable. Although the story didn't say how they did it, it was acknowledged that the theory of Realativity has been broken to a degree.

If any one can find an article about this please post a link. I would love to see if what was said over the radio is true because I still cann't quite believe it.

If they stoped light, then we've all techincally hit warp speed just getting out of bed in the morning ;)

Jerrel wrote:Some scientist in Germany, I believe, made light go faster than light. Shortly after they figure out how to slow it and how to even stop it. If this is true then alot of theroies in astromony have gone out the window considering that alot of it is based off the assuption that 1) nothing can travel faster than light, and 2) that the speed of light is always consant. This also means that faster than light travel is scientificly probable. Although the story didn't say how they did it, it was acknowledged that the theory of Realativity has been broken to a degree.

If any one can find an article about this please post a link. I would love to see if what was said over the radio is true because I still cann't quite believe it.

First off, Paul Harvey kicks all kinds of ass and you should listen to him as much as possible.

Now on to the real topic. This is very interesting news indeed. I will have to look this up myself (google). A huge discovery if it is completely factual. Its more exciting to see scientific theories be defunct than proven at times. But the reason it was a theory and not a law is because it could not be proven through the scientific method. Now the real fun begins in trying to figure out what to do with this new knowledge. Hopefully we won't invent a weapon to destroy ourselves.

Here is an article about Variable Speed of Light:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/ma ... nrite.html

Heres one on what scientists have actually been attempting:

http://livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html

E-bo Obi wrote:Heres one on what scientists have actually been attempting:

http://livescience.com/technology/050819_fastlight.html

Ok I dont get the illusion part. Are they making the istruments think that the light is traveling faster than light? If not then how is it an illusion? Any one think they know?

I read it as multiple wavelengths represent light. By influencing those wavelengths some were able to travel faster than light. Since all the wavelengths are required to be in sync to be considered light then out of sync wavelengths would no longer be true light but could appear to be light.

It was previously theorized that the speed of light was not a constant:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/ ... click=true

Everyone's pretty much agreed for the past 30 years that it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, but they didn't really know how.

E-bo Obi wrote:I read it as multiple wavelengths represent light. By influencing those wavelengths some were able to travel faster than light. Since all the wavelengths are required to be in sync to be considered light then out of sync wavelengths would no longer be true light but could appear to be light.

Ok that does make sence. I guess I was considering their choice to use illusion to literal which then confused me. The way u put it is much better.