More evidence that Einstein was right about light speed
In Albert Einstein’s famous equation, “e” stands for energy, “m” for mass, and “c” represents the speed of light.
March 16th, 2012
11:16 AM ET

More evidence that Einstein was right about light speed

The cards keep on stacking up in favor of Albert Einstein being right about the speed of light: It's looking like its limit is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second, or the "c" in the famous equation E=mc2.

The ICARUS experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy reported Friday that tiny particles called neutrinos did not surpass this commonly recognized speed of light as they traveled from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland to the Italian underground laboratory.

That's what the established laws of physics would predict. The result wouldn't be special, except that it flies in the face of a measurement from 2011 that challenged the foundations that Einstein had laid out.

Last September, scientists at OPERA - which stands for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus - had found that neutrinos from CERN were arriving at Gran Sasso faster than the speed of light. If the particles really did exceed the established speed of light, scientists would have to completely rethink their understanding of how the universe works.

Since then, however, additional details have emerged to call this finding into question. In February, CERN acknowledged that faulty wiring may have produced the faster-than-light measurements.

Today's news isn't the end of the story, however. Four Gran Sasso particle detector experiments - BOREXINO, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA - will all be making new measurements with beams from CERN in May to give the "final verdict," CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci said in a statement.

Theoretical physicist Brian Greene, at Columbia University, told CNN in February that the faster-than-light measurements would probably not hold up to scrutiny. There's already a lot of experimental evidence suggesting that no particles can travel beyond that universal speed limit of light speed.

“They need to have completely independent confirmation by a separate experiment, ideally using different experimental methods," Greene said. "And if that were to happen, that would make many of us sit up in our chairs, or maybe even fall off our chairs."

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

Post by:
Filed under: On Earth
soundoff (692 Responses)
  1. WobDob

    t/d * 3.142857 = mc/d

    Where do I go to get paid?

    March 16, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • EricKuma

      No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto
      http://tauday.com/

      Entire generations of children taught to believe in an irrational number.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
      • WobDob

        er...that's not pi – it looks similar, but you've made an erroneous assumption and that throws the whole thing...

        March 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
      • Dieyoung

        PI – 3.1415926

        March 17, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • phil

      fools. if a light can't escape a black hole then that means that the speed of the suction is greater than the speed of light

      March 16, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
      • L D Fox

        gravity or space time can bend light, another theory of Einstein's that has been proven. gravity rules. space time or gravity can have an afect on light and perhaps it's speed.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
      • Dan

        @Phil, you're not considering what would happen if the suction were equal to the speed of light.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
      • avd

        No, that just means that the gravitational pull of a black hole is far stronger than light. Size and speed are two different things.

        If I shot a bullet in front of an enormous electromagnet, (for the sake of humor, let's say it was 2 football fields long) the bullet would never have a chance of passing the magnet, even as fast as the bullet is. Simply because of the strength of the pull of the magnet. If I had a baby magnet, the bullet would fly right by it. Two magnets with same speed in force, just one has a much larger force.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
      • tim

        The immense gravity of the black hole warps the space around it so much that the space beyond the event horizon is closed off from the normal universe. It's like trying to travel to an object so far away in the universe that particles there are receding from us at a relative speed faster than the speed of light (yes, this is possible with an expanding universe). That part of the universe is forever inaccessible to us. Just like the "normal" universe is forever inaccessible to a particle that has moved beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:07 am |
      • JustDave

        I weigh 200 pounds and if I stand stationary, I still have the capacity to catch one of my kids running by with one arm. I wasn't moving at all, but they certainly were. How does that violate the law discussed here?

        March 17, 2012 at 12:10 am |
      • tim

        Dave, first I would ask "how fast was your arm moving out from your body to catch them?"

        Then I would ask, "But more importantly, how much did your kids laugh when you grabbed them and scooped them off of the ground?"

        Next thread, we can discuss how aerodynamic they truly are when flown in circles like an airplane!

        March 17, 2012 at 12:14 am |
  2. Earl

    Are all of you going to be surprised ! Anyone else here had a NDE ? (Near Death Experience)
    I have...been there ....done that !
    Yes there is a God. But NO there is no hell.
    It is beautiful and wondrous and it takes an eternity to even begin to understand.
    You will really like it and be amazed.
    BTW, I am an astrophysicist and can reconcile God and science.
    As He implies....I have created all this wonder for you.
    And yes, you can go faster than the speed of light. Just like we DO go faster than the speed of sound.
    Earl

    March 16, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Bog

      Thanks for sharing the love Earl... now could you share some of your meds.🙂

      March 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • phil johnson

      you're an astrophysicist and I'm the Queen of Sheba.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • Hmmm

      you're an astrophysicist and you're comparing going faster than the speed of light to going faster than the speed of sound without explaining relativistic effects? I call BS on you. Phoenix U perhaps?

      March 16, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • mac

      WOW !!! I hope it's like you say,

      March 16, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Michael

      I don't know about death or near death experiences, but surely the superluminal speeds do exist.
      Our solar sysem would not exist and be stable if the gravitational forces would not be many times larger than speed of light. The orbits of all the planets would decay and eventually would fall into our sun at a faster rate than we actually we observe this to happen.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • hecep

      You know, in situations where there are just no words... there are howls of mocking and derisive laughter!

      March 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Earl

      Most people believe in God on faith....I believe on FACT !
      Earl

      March 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
      • THAT guy

        Jesus.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • avd

      you're right about one thing – science and religion should match. If they don't, then the religion is wrong or the science is wrong or both are wrong.

      "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" – Newton

      In that same light, where there is good, there too will be evil. God does exist, but so does the adversary.

      2 Nephi 2:
      11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

      12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

      13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

      14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

      15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

      16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

      17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

      18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • THAT guy

      http://www.livescience.com/16019-death-experiences-explained.html
      Points for trying, though.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:16 am |
      • avd

        I'm not referring to NDEs

        March 17, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • Cappoman

      @Phil – Einstein is God. Don't you get it? Relax, it comes easy once you let go. God hasn't REALLY done anything for you, has he? Except maybe cause a distraction in your life? Some conflict? Some anxiety? Just relax. It'll be OK. I promise.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:20 am |
      • Cappoman

        Sorry – @Earl, not @Phil...I blame it in alphabetical gravity.

        March 17, 2012 at 1:22 am |
    • jo prime

      Earl is right minus the Hell part. Next time you are out of body step through a doorway and ask to go to Hell. It will surprise you.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:09 am |
  3. Eng

    Speed can measure through time and distance but in the universe there is no time. Time is the only puzzle that blocked our knowledge in the universe. Someday you will know. a man can harvest 10 apples in 1 day and the other can make it 1 hour. so the other man is a lazy. but if you remove time.. those men can harvest the same amount of apples.

    March 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Patrick

      This is incorrect. To say that there is no time in the universe is syntactically meaningless. Objects in the universe move through time at different rates. The real reason nothing can go faster than the speed of light is because EVERYTHING is ALWAYS moving at the speed of the light. When one combines something's momentum through space with their momentum through time, it always equals the speed of light. We accelerate by diverting some of our momentum through time and applying it to our momentum through space–that's why someone moving very fast through space moves more slowly through time. Photons, in fact, move through space so fast, they have no momentum left to move through time. From a photons point of view, everything that ever happens to it throughout its whole existence occurs at the exact same instant. There is no "before" or "after" for a photon. Time is a dimension through which we pass–a fourth "direction" in which we travel. Lazy people who don't wish to pick apples have absolutely nothing to teach us about time.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
      • Born To Scream

        Dude, you hurt my brain.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:04 am |
      • Eng

        now how you gonna explain the 24 hours in the universe?

        March 17, 2012 at 12:25 am |
      • Patrick

        No pain, no gain–right? It's not all that complicated. Time is not relative. Our perceptions of events around us are affected by our own particular movement through space and time, but that is not what Einstein referred to by relativity. He was referring to universe's point of view–not ours. Not everything is relative.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:58 am |
      • tim

        Quite correct. Every particle moves through space-time (taking the 3 dimensions of space as one coordinate, and time as the other) at exactly 'C' – the speed of light. So a photon, which moves at velocity 'C' through space, does not move at all through time. And is also why a tachyon, which (theoretically, if they existed) moves at greater than 'C' though space, must then move negative/backward, through time. Pretty interesting stuff.

        March 17, 2012 at 1:02 am |
      • Patrick

        To ENG–

        Our earth turns on its axis. Each full revolution is dvided by us on earth into 24 equal hours, during which we all moved through time at a particular rate which is affected by–but NOT relative to–our particular velocity. Meanwhile,objects in the rest of universe also moved through time at rates affected by–but NOT relative to–their particular velocities. Their velocities through time were different than hours, and their momentum through time was different than ours, and we sometimes say they are "relative" to ours. But this is NOT what Einstein meant by relativity. Our perceptions are indeed relative–but that's only partly because of physics, given the time it takes for information to reach us. Mostly it's an accident of language. Einstein addressed very different scenarios that gave rise to identical physics. THIS is what he meant by "relativity". Most people use the word "relative" when really they mean "subjective". Even Einstein ended up wishing he had used a different word.

        March 17, 2012 at 1:17 am |
      • Eng

        To Patrick
        your knowledge is correct. i wont argue with you. but my opinion is that time is not exist in the universe. there is something out there that speed can measure without time. and thats beyond our knowledge..

        March 17, 2012 at 1:47 am |
  4. NG

    In my opinion the speed of light is the perfect balance of speed and efficiency. So to go faster than the speed of light would mean astronomical costs and feverish amounts of energy. Imagine us turning our sun into a generator that fling spaceships into space to visit other galaxies. Now imagine that was only able to be used once. My theory to travel faster than light is this- Having a focal point such as mars and a huge pole that stretches out to Pluto attaching a ship to the end. Having something powering the inner part of the sling shot so to speak thus causing the power output to be amplified by the axis. The farthest part on the pole moves faster than the inner part. If the inner part is moving at the speed of light the outer part is moving faster.

    March 16, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • N8

      Your opinion doesn't matter. Science matters.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:05 am |
      • Patrick

        THANK YOU!!

        March 17, 2012 at 1:42 am |
  5. DarkAxel

    So, if the speed of light is a constant, and time is relative, why is the speed of light measured in units of time?

    March 16, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • tim

      Simple. Suppose you were to travel fast enough so that time slowed down exactly by half – so that one second for you is two seconds to someone at rest with respect to you. if you were to attempt to measure the speed of light in meters per second, any device you might use as a meter would have contracted to half it's size, relative to a meter that was at rest. So you would come up with the exact same value for the speed of light as someone at rest with respect to you. This is why the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames of reference. ie, it doesn't change with your velocity.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
      • Patrick

        Simple, yes. But not simple enough. The contraction of things is a relative phenomenon–it would be referenced only by stationary onlookers. In fact, speed is a function of time. That is, a measure of distance traveled during a certain interval of time. Our measurement of light speed is a function of OUR movement through time, not light's. Light doesn't move through time–but we do. As long as we are moving through time, we will ALWAYS get the same time-based measurement for something that is NOT moving through time, regardless of how fast we ourselves are moving through it. The precise reason for this is explained above, in my reply to NG.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:01 am |
    • BALDY

      Relativity shows that it soes not have a single speed, it is "relative".

      March 16, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
      • EricKuma

        Yes the faster an object moves, the slower time moves for that object as compared to a slower moving object. This is a well established idea. A well founded scientific theory. Google it. The only way to travel through time is a one way trip into the future. Funny though, follow the logic to the end and it makes it sound like Time stops for anything moving as fast as light.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
      • Patrick

        No, that is not what relativity says. "Relativity" refers to the universe's point of view. From the universe's point of view, there is no difference between someone accelerating through space and someone in a gravity field. The physics in both instances are identical. Likewise, the universe can't tell the difference between someone standing still and someone moving at a constant speed. Again, the physics are identical. They are "relative". This is why Einstein theorized that you could travel back in time by whipping around the sun. If you accelerate into a strong gravity field, the universe–because it can't tell the difference between acceleration and gravity–will add the two together and be fooled into thinking that you were moving faster than the speed of light. The universe would be compelled to compensate for this impossibility by subtracting time and sending you into the past. This is exactly how Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock did it when they returned to the 1980s and saved the whales. The mystery is how they returned to the future at the end of the movie, since there is no "speed-minimum" and thus no way to fool the universe into thinking you're going slower than someone standing still.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • EricKuma

      The speed of the Milky Way galaxy is not a single number, its value is relative to the speed of other objects around it. Time is a unit of measurement between at least two objects in space. Time and Distance... Space. Time is a unit of measurement which is relative to a perspective which is defined by an objects location in space as compared to other objects around it.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • John King

      That's relative to an observer. From the perspective of the photon, emision and absorbtion exist outside of time, even though, from the perspective of an observer, it may have taken a billion years for the photon to travel from another galaxy to her retina.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • jacob

      Because the speed of light is constant given your frame of reference. As you approach the speed of light you won't notice the change of time, and the speed of light WILL ALWAYS be 300000 km/s faster than you. Say you're going 98% the speed of light, you'll age slower than someone going only 5% the speed of light; however, you won't think you're aging any slower, your mental state and processing will feel just like they do now. The odd thing is, to you the 5% person will appear to be traveling at 98% and vice versa, and the speed of light will be traveling 300000km/s via both your perspectives. I hope that helps somewhat. The question I'd like to have answered is, if time slows down as you speed up, yet speed is relative – to me the 5% guy is traveling @ 98% and vice versa – why do I age slower and not them? How is it decided who is traveling at what speed? I'd age slower relative to the other person, since he perceives me as traveling faster, but shouldn't he age slower than me given he would appear to be traveling faster than me? All of this can be imagined in an empty environment with just the two travelers and one photon.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
      • jacob

        The only way I can think to answer my question is that although time and speed is relative, energy is not. A third observer, if possible, could measure my energy and the other's energy and determine who is traveling at the faster rate. So is it true that the greater the energy the slower you'd experience time? Say I'm traveling 90% the speed of light and another person 95% the speed of light, however my mass compensates enough so that my ener
        gy is much greater than his, would time be slower for me or him?

        March 16, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
      • tim

        Simple again. While one of really is moving near lightspeed, it is impossible to determine at that moment which one it is. You can oly do so after you have exchanged information with each other to see which one really had aged more than the other. But here is the run: this information exchange MUST travel at light speed. So if you were to travel at 98% , and he at 5% – you would age slower. But you'd have to communicate back to him to check for sure. So you could oly guess until that communication had occurred, which would take time.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
      • jacob

        Tim,

        Why what you say at first thought seems sound, I believe it actually implies speed is not relative. If I was able to exchange information with the other traveler at the speed of light and determine that in fact I was going faster and had aged a specific amount less than he, then I'd know how much faster than him I was going. Take that and expand it to the thought that what if everything in a given universe exhanged information at the speed of light, we would then determine an absolute 0 speed. There would be no way to prove the 'slowest' traveler is moving and not actually stationary. We would then have to base all speeds off of that traveler, as we'd have am absolute reference. The reason we can't use the speed of light as a reference is because it's always the speed of light given our frame. What your saying makes me think of trying to measure the location of a photon without affecting it's momentum, violating the uncertainty principle.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
      • tim

        But jacob, you could not know this at the exact time you passed the person going at 5%. That is my point. So at that exact moment, the perception that either of you has that the other is really moving slower is correct. Both perceptions are indeed true – at that exact moment. Only a speed of light limited exchange of information later can nail down the truth.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:09 am |
      • jacob

        Tim,

        Good points. I agree for the most part. However, would it not be possible to exchange info at the exact moment with the help of quantum entanglement? Now, I'm no expert and didn't major in any of this so I apologize if this Soo.da ridicilous. I've read using QE you can instantaneously gain info about a particle without having to measure it. We don't have the technology now, but one day couldn't this end up being enough for travelers to instantaneously exchange info?

        March 17, 2012 at 12:20 am |
      • tim

        Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light information up here at the "macro level". Only at the quantum is this a phenomenon. Consider this experiment. Suppose I tell you that I have a particle that is quantum entangled with another particle that is 10 light years away on another planet, being watched by another scientist on that planet. If I see my particle go 10 centimeters to the left, then 10 to the right, there is no way to verify that it was indeed quantum entangled with that other particle until I have communicated my finding to the other scientist, and he with me. But that communication must occur at light speed – and no faster. So until I have that confirmation of what the other particle did when i saw mine jig and jag, I cannot prove the quantum entanglement with certainty.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:36 am |
      • Patrick

        You're both looking at this wrong. Time is a dimension. How fast we move through has nothing to do with how fast someone else is moving through it. We move through time in very real, absolute rates. The faster we move through time, the slower we move through space and vice versa. People going slower through space age faster than us because they moved through time faster. It's not a trick of perception. We accelerate through space by diverting our momentum through time and applying to to our momentum through space. If you add the two momentums together, they always equal the speed of light. If we were to move through space the at the speed of light, we would have no momentum left to move through time and time, for us, would "stop"–which is to say, we would cease to move through it. Everything is always moving the speed the light if you factor in their momentum through time.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:51 am |
    • Steve

      Time is not relative, it can be measured with a clock. Einstein theorized that clocks traveling at different speeds or in different graviational speeds may tick at different rates. However, the speed of light measured by these clocks would be constant. To determine the speed of light requires a clock and a length reference and the measurement process has changed over time.

      In the 1870's, the length of the meter was defined by a meter-long bar located in France, and the speed of light was measured against a clock. In 1960, the meter was redefined as 1,650,763.73 wavelegth of light emitted by a Krypton-86 atomic source and the time was measured against the frequency of a cesium atomic clock. in 1983 the measurement of time using an atomic clock became so accurate, that the international committee defined the speed of light and we now use it to measure the meter.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:24 pm |
  6. lovestosplooge

    Truth is, they did find a particle traveling faster then the speed of light, they just don't want to rewrite 60 years of physics.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
  7. dd

    The news media lost all credibility with the first stories suggesting the speed of light was exceeded. Why didn't the media wait for the final analysis and the truth? Because news journalists don't care about the truth. And that is why newspapers are failing. People don't buy rotting fruit and they don't buy lying news.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
  8. Sagebrush Shorty

    If God had intended us to use the Metric system he would have given us 10 fingers.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • JoJo

      I don't know about you, but I just verified that I have 10 fingers....by counting on my toes. Hey, wait do we have ten toes?

      March 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
      • jojob

        Way to kill the joke.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  9. Marc Parella

    Matter cannot travel beyond c because the energy required would be infinite. But what if energy wasn't required at all. When you are in an airliner traveling 500 mph it is the airline producing the energy. You are fast asleep producing no energy at all to travel at 500 mph. You get up and walk to the bathroom- the energy to walk to the bathroom is the same as if you are stationary on the ground. Take it another step. You are in the airliner and you swing a golf club at a golf ball. The ball travels 90 mph plus the speed of the airliner (unless you are not a very good golfer). No one could possibly hit a golf ball 590 mph. If you lived your whole life on an airplane you wouldn't even think about the 500 mph you are traveling. Now we live on a planet that is traveling about 66,000 mph around the sun. Sure feels slow to me.

    The speed of light is fixed because the energy to produce velocity is finite in normal space. Remove the relationship between energy and velocity and there could be a back door.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Jasper Eliot

      Actually, on a flight from Toronto to London I did hit a golf ball with my Callaway Big Bertha driver, and the flight attendant was none to pleased about it. Seems she (along with a few of the passengers) remained unimpressed with my physics lesson.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
      • JLM

        Simply Brilliant!!!!

        March 16, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • Ettore Casagrande

      YOU are not creating energy, but the airplane sure is. And it needs to provide more of it if you're on the plane. So, basically, the airplane is doing your work for you, as should have been pretty obvious.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
      • Marc Parella

        The logic I am using suggests a multi-dimensional understanding of speed. I am not traveling 550,000 mph which is exactly the speed I and you and everything is traveling because that is the speed our solar system is traveling around the galaxy. Are we to ignore this velocity when calculating any speed here on Earth? For me no. When a space ship is traveling away from the solar system it is traveling 550,000mph plus it's own internal speed.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • JohnS

      Unfortunately, your hypothesis ignores your initial assumption. The base speed of the golf ball (500 mph) IS the result of the energy provided by the airplane – – subtract the weight of the golf ball and the airplane would be traveling slightly faster than 500 mph.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • E

      Stop thinking in terms of Newtonian/Classical physics.

      We're talking relativity here, where Einstein expanded on the Lorentz transformation. Put simply, the relative speeds of objects will always approach the speed of light limit and no more.

      So, even with infinite energy, you'd still be stuck traveling at that speed.

      The flow of time is another matter entirely ...

      March 16, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
      • Marc Parella

        Actually I am not thinking in terms of classical physics, but in metaphysical logic. This theory is actually not my own but I take it to transcendental level. We are in fact traveling 550,000 mph – the speed our solar system is traveling around the galaxy. But in a metaphysical sense we are sitting at home in front of our computers not moving at all. But somehow the plane analogy doesn't work for you because conceptually the plane represents kinetic energy. I am trying to remove that element from the equation, thereby suggesting that speeds greater than light must be produced in a multi-dimensional environment where standing still equals the speed of light.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
      • E

        So you're making up physics that don't exist yet.

        Moving right along ...

        March 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • EricKuma

      Nope. Its not a back door. The object becomes energy moving at the speed of light.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
      • Marc Parella

        Again the theory relies on removing energy from velocity or developing a multi-dimensional environment where zero energy applied to matter equals c since the environment is already moving at c or faster. Again, our planet is moving at 550,000 mph around the galaxy. I am not using Newton, but rather suggesting a metaphysical "mind experiment" to suggest another way to look at this issue. The actual theory needed to prove the feasibility is not available.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • widowmonk

      I am no physicist, but how about the word "perception". all what we talk about that there is no way that a matter particle can exceed the speed of light, does not address our limited perception tools.
      As far as we as human beings are designed (evolved) with all our senses and brain capacity to process facts and images, and with all the technology that has emerged in the last 5 decades, could we not be still limited in our perception?
      That could be it, let us think that in 5 more decades there comes a new technology (from here or outter space) that can actually address new horizons of measuerment of speed perse, then our perception would expand to accomodate new dimensions... after all 200 years ago, the earth was believed strongly to be flat and anyone who argued against it was labled to be a whitch. here is another index : think of infinity........ try to conceptualise it............. it is so painful because our limited capacity to perceive ends, is so limited. so maybe there are particles that can travel triple speed of light that our limited experiences on planet earth has not yet allowed us to recognise

      March 16, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • CD

      Isnt it because your mass becomes in essence part of the planes mass for all intents and purposes while your inside it?

      March 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
      • Marc Parella

        That's correct. But again we are on a planet that is moving 550,000mph around the Milky Way and who knows how fast the Milky Way is traveling. (Actually this is known but I don't have that information). The point is that the speed of light is constant in all normal space environments but normal space may be something that can change. (And I no this is not Star Trek). The plane analogy is just a mind experiment that gives us perhaps a new way to look at these limitations.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • Doctor Science

      B as in B, S as in S.

      A particle with no forces acting on it requires no energy to sustain its velocity. Except for a case of acceleration (or deceleration) , no force is acting on a particle and no energy is needed to sustain its velocity. This is old Newtonian physics and is still true.

      A particle cannot exceed the speed of light because there is a phenomenon known as length compression and breadth expansion as a particle approaches the speed of light. At the speed of light, the length of a particle is zero and its breadth is infinite. Thus it is no longer a particle. The particle's mass also increases to infinity at the limit.

      The speed of light is an absolute speed. If you emit light from a source that is moving at 50% of the speed of light, the light STILL propagates with an absolute speed limit of 300,000 kM per second, not 450,000 kM per second relative to a stationery viewpoint. One only perceives a shift in WAVELENGTH of the light emitted from a fast moving emitting source (Doppler shift).

      March 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
      • Marc Parella

        But everything you state is applicable only in normal space. The spatial environment needed to accommodate faster-than-light travel where matter and energy do not expand beyond infinite levels is currently the direction among FTL proponents. Relativity is indeed the universal speed limit. But the golf ball on the plane is only a simpleton's explanation of the required environment needed. Certainly physics has not yet explained why light is fixed at c, only the limitations. I believe when there is a unified theory that incorporates current string theories, the environment needed where c is not fixed might open an door.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
      • THAT guy

        From the photon's perspective, there is no travel time regardless of distance. The photon simultaneously hits its target after it is emitted, even if the target is billions of light years away.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:20 am |
  10. Visara

    I love how people here try their hardest to sound intelligent, when in actuality, none of you have any idea what you're talking about.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Sagebrush Shorty

      Including you?

      March 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • mac

      I didn't see you give any thing better ???????. I think it is great that people at least take the time to TRY and enlighten us that dont know( like me ) . It's fascinating to read this stuff, i enjoy reading the comments on this board, thanks every one

      March 17, 2012 at 12:38 am |
  11. volsocal

    I think the CERN people need to quit obsessing with Albert Eienstein's theories and focus their resources and brainpower on developing a practical fusion power generation model that can supply electricity to millions efficiently with very little nuclear waste. Their funding should depend on the successful construction and demonstration of a working prototype fusion power generation station.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • david

      good idea. check out mt good ideas if you have time w-w-w rdghayden dot blog spot dot com

      March 16, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
  12. JoJo

    I have verified that time travel into the future is possible. It's now 10:21pm and 10 seconds. .......Now it's 10:21pm and 15 seconds. See I told you so.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • DJCowboy

      I time travel every Saturday night. My flux capacitor is Captain Morgan, the side effects of time travel are a headache and shame.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
  13. Truth Hurts

    The speed of dark travels faster than the speed of light.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • JoJo

      But how can you tell if you're in the dark?

      March 16, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
      • EricKuma

        You would see the light at the end of the tunnel.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  14. L D Fox

    The only way that particles could reach the end before the light is if they traveled thru time into the future. If the distance the particles traveled at the speed of light were far enough, it is possible that they would travel thru time and get there before the light. Then it would prove another of Einstein's theories. That traveling close to or at the speed of light would be a way of traveling into the future. Perhaps if they could use The Large Hadron Collider and let the particles travel at the speed of light around and around for an extended length of time before colliding at the end. Then they possibly could have another way to verify that time travel into the future is possible. And be closer to one day being finally able to send a human into the future.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • ddblah

      Sorry, I think you misunderstood the theory of special relativity.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
      • E

        Well, the time-axes of things traveling near light speed do get messy.

        So, in a way, those things appear to "travel through time."

        March 16, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
  15. volsocal

    What's this "may be right" stuff? The guy predicted that gravitational fields bend light 17 YEARS before it was undisputably observed by astronomers. That defines genius in my book.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Brad

      And..... Predicted it precisely!

      March 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
      • electroguy

        I predicted that Michael Jackson would overdose some day... does that make me The Grim Reaper?

        March 16, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
  16. Leafy

    If the Millennium Falcon went into hyperspace, it would be on the other side of the galaxy by now.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
  17. oh yes

    Genetics, time travel, dimensions, dinosaurs, ufo's, ancient aliens...just about everything was foretold blah blah blah..... and all established in the compiled bible before modern science discovered any of it. Yet some of you are so brainwashed by the educational system you know nothing of it.

    March 16, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • eliot

      get a life

      March 16, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • E

      i'm afraid the poster meant s/he was brainwashed.

      and clearly not by any acceptable educational system (theological, scientific, etc.)

      March 16, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • THAT guy

      Yeah, the Bible's Book of Dinosaurs is my favorite read. "And ye will roar!" – Tyrannosaurs 11-18

      March 17, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  18. Ryan M. Mahoney

    Reblogged this on Christus Victor.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
  19. PDXSerric

    The fact of the matter is, while matter (at least any large matter as we know it) can not reach the speed of light let along exceed it. Which means exploring the universe will never happen as long as we depend on speed. The distances are just to cast, even given the discrepancy of time-at-speed. Ergo, moving an object through space isn't the answer. Rather, moving the space around an object is. Space isn't matter and isn't adhered to the same restrictions as matter when it comes to speed. Matter, on the other hand, can rest perfectly still in space. Figuring out the answer to this riddle would mean that speed is no longer a factor in exploration, and the distance between us and, say Alpha Centauri, would seem inconsequential.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • PDXSerric

      Apologies for the typos.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
      • Jean Luke Picard

        So I guess Bob Lazar is correct...

        March 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
      • Robyn

        Having matter move AT the speed of light is theoretically and practically impossible according to our current understanding of the universe. But there is not particular restriction on matter moving faster than the speed of light, and as much faster as you would care to trek. No speed limits on the far side of the hill.

        Of course, there is that pesky problem of getting from here to there without crossing the point in the middle, but I leave that as an exercise for the engineers in the class to work out. As Sheldon would say, we have to leave some of the simpler problems for the slower step-siblings of the physicists to solve.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • E

        Jumping the light barrier is simply fantastical.

        Before the "slower brethren" can figure that out, the physicists will need to invent that field first.

        Otherwise, I doubt any of us will be building rotating quantum strings or stable wormholes with black holes in the short run.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • hmmm

      Interesting thought, what is space's atomic make-up?

      March 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • MIke

      I'm not a scientist, but it would seem to me that when the universe came into being (i.e. Big Bang Theory) that the speed of light was exceeded. Perhaps the laws of nature that we now enjoy were different 14Billion years ago. Maybe E=Mc^2 was not always true. And if this is the case, perhaps E=Mc^2 may not be true int he future either. Things ae always changing

      March 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • dbezan

        You're right, but according to relativity theory, while matter cannot travel faster than light, spacetime itself can.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
      • rickirs

        Before the big bang the speed of light did not exist, eg., time did not exist which allowed for the existence of infinite gravity.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
      • Matt

        Time travels at the speed of light.

        For example, if a ship were to travel at the speed of light, time would stop on that ship from the point-of-view of the stationary observer. Since time appears to have stopped, the ship has actually "caught up" with time's speed of passage – ie: the speed of light.

        Time and space are knitted together as the fabric of space-time, which is travelling outward as a result of the big bang. This outward expansion is occurring at the speed of light.

        This expansion of space also drags time outward in every direction at the speed of light, giving any observer the impression that time is "passing".

        In fact, the passage of time is actually the effect of space-time being dragged past the observer at the speed of light.

        Just my humble opinion.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • EricKuma

      I agree. Think outside the box.
      A solution would be to become infinite.
      Move a fraction in space.
      Then become finite again.
      The distances "traveled" could be immense.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
  20. Indy Scientist

    You see,God doesn't want it to be so complicated for us. Complexity is not necessary. Given the choice between a very complex formula and a very simple one, the simpler one will work if you are close to God's truth. If your research is off or totally wrong then you are better off choosing the more complex formula since you will need all the help you can get.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • rob

      Whatever... bla bla bla

      March 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • PDXSerric

      Makes no sense at all.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Quark

      Does this mean God is also limited to the speed of light?

      March 16, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Russ

      The universe was created before there was God. You see, man created God in his own image as is depicted in paintings. Even now, people's thinking of what heaven and hell are is based on Renaissance paintings and Dante's Inferno. It is all myth, which most people have accepted as truth. That way, life and death are easier to deal with.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
      • Russ Reimer

        All the atheist supposings are so completely void of truth. I'll give you ONE piece of evidence you will not be able to debunk, and there are MANY we Christians have to back up our beliefs...Ready? Of the 12 disciples after Judas was replaced following his suicide following his betrayal of Jesus, only ONE died of natural causes at an old age...John..who wrote Revelation. All the other 11 died by being martyred...some were crucified, shot with arrows, torn in pieces, thrown to lions etc. Now...all ANY of these men had to do to escape such horror was to simply say, "ummm...well...never mind...we just made it all up. Jesus never walked on water, raised the dead, healed the blind, deaf, cast out demons...we never REALLY saw any of that, we just made it up!" But not ONE disciple ever recanted. The things they said they SAW with their own eyes, and participated in, they DIED for it. Now ask yourself, O thinking atheist, O mocker of all things "religious" .....who would KNOWINGLY die for a lie? And it wasn't just the disciples who didn't recant, but the thousands in the crowds Jesus fed by multiplying 5 loaves and 2 fish from a young boy's lunch, or the others who saw Lazarus raised from the dead, or the hundreds gathered who eye witnessed Jesus ascend into heaven in broad daylight...again...they went to the Colloseum, were torn apart by lions with their wives and children, were ripped in two, burned alive and every other kind of torture rather than simply gotten out of it all by simply saying it never happenec. I urge all skeptics, agnostics, atheists etc. who read this to get an older book by Josh McDowell called "Evidence that Demands A Verdict." You can also watch many of Josh's videos on youtube by punching in Josh McDowell. Don't be a loser/intellect who thinks like the other idiots that it all just HAPPENED. Open your MIND and examine the evidence. The several hundred MILLION Christians in the world today will TELL you of the life we have inside of us, the tender voice of God in our hearts and spirits, of the happiness in knowing we live our lives CLEAN, FREE OF ADDICTIONS, and KNOWING we are eternally secure when we die. If we are wrong..then we lived GREAT lives of freedom in our spirits and minds at peace and then just go into nothingness YOU think awaits us all. If WE are right, then you have foolishly gambled your eternal life away by not accepting Jesus and asking his forgiveness for sin. There IS a heaven and hell...go ahead, moron...GAMBLE that YOU are right. It is a sorry gamble, and one you will lose. Get Josh's book and see him on youtube, and THINK for a change! Russ Reimer

        March 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
      • DbillerNHosta

        To believe that God is non-existent is ignorant and makes for a feeble minded existence in a human being. However, I digress from what I was thinking: not having an ultimate being would not make life and death easier to deal with. Are you insane, stupid, egotistical, or mentally retarded? I am guessing all of the above.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
      • Dave Mostel

        Excellent theory. My sentiments exactly and since I realized this I feel better about life and have a better value on life because this is the only olife we get. tough to swallow but true.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
      • longshot

        And men willingly flew planes into the Trade Towers, does that make their message the truth as well? Your "proof" is no proof at all.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
      • ForIbelieve

        God speaking to Job for questioning God's judgment:

        Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! (Job 38:18-21 NIV)

        March 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
      • THAT guy

        Aye. If the Bible was true, there wouldn't be the many races we see on the Earth today, because all humans except Noah's family was supposedly wiped off the whole of the Earth because no land protruded above the water. Of course, the story is BS. If that story is BS, I say all of it is.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • Haversack

      Albert Einstein was an Atheist you ass

      March 16, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
      • MIke

        Why is the quotation "I want to know he thoughts of God, everything else is just a detail" atributed to Albert Einstien?
        We do not know Albert's relationsship was to God.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • Lana

        Albert Einstein was not an atheist. He was an agnostic.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
      • JohnS

        Then how do you explain his rejection of randomness/chaos with his famous insistence that 'God does not play at dice'?

        March 16, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • jim

      how do you know what god wants? and which god are you talking about, anyways.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
      • MIke

        I was reference to Gods that live on the west side of the Mississippi. We coutry folk know what that God wants.... it's the East, North and the South Gods that do what what want.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • sherlock

      how's this for complicated...

      god created man, different types of angels, some angels fell, man sinned, animal sacrifices were required to forgive sin, god impregnated a human woman with his son (who, along with the holy ghost, are still part of god), let man kill his son to forgive sins and end animal sacrifice, god will send his son back at an unknown time, saved humans will go to heaven while unsaved humans burn for eternity.

      i prefer the "simplicity" of science to this hogwash any day of the week.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  21. eg

    that a sky rider?
    reverse echos, into themselves so your saving the best for last
    are you
    3am eternal baby

    March 16, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  22. helenecha

    Hah ... I love to see that. E=mc2 + 0

    March 16, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  23. Itsmeagain

    🍀 🍀 🍀 It's St Patricks Day, have fun!!!

    March 16, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
  24. TheBob

    Bush Destroyed America.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • TheTeacher

      Maybe it was America that destroyed Bush's character and he was subconciously returning the favor

      March 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
      • TheTeacher

        Subconsciously, that is...

        March 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
  25. Flipider.com

    Most material comes from star light. For something to become into Existence light would need to be slowed down.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • Chris

      Or move in a different direction than the three we perceive.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • Rationalist

      Try reading a physics book instead of Dr Seuss. Then again, if Dr. Seuss is your source of knowledge. ... you can forget about any physics books.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • Cosmos42

      No, most material comes from star poop. It's a point of fact.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
  26. Big Ger

    Not so long ago, humanity beleived that the Sun, Moon and other celistial bodies were Gods. We even made stone statues into Gods. We don't do that anymore simply because we now understand what those things really are. "The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to mankind, the more widespread is the decline of religious beleif".
    Seems to be the case so far.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  27. Chris

    I encourage everyone to read a book called I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Chris

      I didn't write this.

      - the Chris who wrote the next post.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • atroy

      The book is a conundrum. If you don't have enough faith to believe in Nothing (which by the way does not require faith), then you certainly don't have enough faith to believe in your god.

      March 16, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
  28. Chris

    Consider the von Neumann universe. There is debate about whether the sets in it exist or not in the real, physical sense. Consider also the real Universe. There is debate, too, about what it means to exist in it, as well as how and why we do.
    Intuitively, the real, physical Universe is the one right in front of our faces. The one in which we live. The one that is inescapable whenever we are alive, awake, and sane. We agree that there is an objective reality, and consider it somehow immune from the subjective reality each of us sees with our own eyes. The one to which our constant attention is required, if we are to remain alive, awake, and sane. We are immersed and involved so deeply in this Universe that that we have utterly misunderstood it.
    With classical physics, we led ourselves to believe we understood it precisely, so much so that we speculated as to whether we would soon know all there was to be known. And we undertook the study of it all in the first place in our search for God and His will.
    Then came the big let-downs. Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. Evolution by natural selection. Gödel's incompleteness. Nietzsche's nihilism. Jaynes' bicameral mind. Long ago, we even had Zeno's paradox of motion. Wave after wave of confusing and confounding ideas battered our complacency. The real Universe simply was not what it appeared to our naïve senses to be. We know it isn't.
    Space, time, energy, and matter. These four things lie at the heart of what we call "real". We have learned that they are related concepts, but we do perceive each differently from the others, and that is an important point. They are what is right in front of our faces. They are what we seek to understand. And we have come to understand that space and time are one thing, that matter and energy are one thing, and that furthermore, space-time and matter-energy are so dependent and intertwined that all four things must be one and the same thing. I will refer to them by the acronym "STEM", because I will refer to them repeatedly.
    So the four components of STEM are really one thing, and that thing is not what it appears to be. If we wish to understand what it really is, we must disregard STEM. Any attempt to explain STEM in terms of STEM is an exercise in circular reasoning. We simply cannot understand the real, physical Universe in terms of the attributes of the real, physical Universe. We must understand how STEM arises from something that is not STEM.
    Having thus demolished our notion of what real, physical existence is, we need a replacement for it. I think, therefore I am, therefore something exists, and we wish to know what that even means. The latest thinking on that subject seems to be in information physics, and digital philosophy. In particular, we have Wheeler's "It From Bit", and Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". They suggest that real, physical existence arises from mathematical existence.
    It is no coincidence that that is counter-intuitive. The mind revolts at the notion that our world, with its rocks and trees and people and cars and oceans, could ever come from something as insubstantial as a mathematical structure. And yet we are forced to entertain the possibility. We know something exists, and we know that we cannot use STEM to understand it. The basis we seek for existence must be nowhere. It must be never. It must be nothing. It must do nothing. And yet it somehow generates (at least the illusion of) everything everywhere. All that it is, and all that it does. It rather sounds like God, except for the part about having little if anything to do with the gods of our mythologies, and little reason to find us particularly interesting. This basis must at any rate somehow give rise to STEM, and to our wonder.
    This, I think, is where the von Neumann universe comes in. It derives ultimately from the empty set, i.e. a set with nothing in it. The only thing its existence can be said to depend upon is that there is even such a thing as a set. Some would argue even about that, but I think that is the whole point. A set is an intangible, insubstantial concept, but if we know we are looking for something with no STEM, that makes it perhaps ideal.

    There is much ground to cover along this line of reasoning, but I will stop here. I hope I have piqued the interest of at least one inquiring mind.

    March 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Mike

      Compact your message dude. The length of your way too long rant obviously points out your hidden insecurities. Your point may be valid but you don't have to be Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory to get others attention.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
      • Chris

        Back when I was a child, we had these things called "books" that were much longer than that. We also had these things called "attention spans", dude.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
      • Chris

        Oh, and Sheldon is an idiot - a clown devised for the amusement of simpletons.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
      • Roberto

        The term "rant" doesn't mean something that is verbose either. There is a real problem with someone under a science article not being willing to read – and it shows in their own writing...

        March 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
      • E

        We also have things called "journals" where scientific advancement happens.

        And as a busy peer reviewer and scientist, I prefer to see authors get to the point.

        Otherwise, I consider his thinking pattern as muddled as his/her writings.

        Books are for novices.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • ron

      I suggest it isn't possible to establish our origin through deductive reasoning... although c.s. Lewis made a formidable case in Mere Christianity, knowing our Lord requires faith.

      If you haven't had an oppurtunity, read My utmost for his highest.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
      • Chris

        I suggest it IS possible, perhaps even simple.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • The Flamingo Kid

      Do you really think even one person read your comment?

      March 16, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
  29. Peter

    I have the answer to the future.

    Ask away.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • ET

      Fools.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • Miles Veritatis

      What will I eat for lunch tomorrow?😉

      March 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • simple simon

      But you should already know what those questions are.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
  30. Atomico

    Einstein was a patent clerk who read all confidential submissions about new innovations.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • Opie

      You're an idiot to think that

      March 16, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • JPS

      a patent clerk came up with all these universal laws of the universe....rigggghtttt....

      he was visited.....

      March 16, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • AGuest9

      It was the application for a time synchronization scheme for all of the clocks in Bern that gave him the idea.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • tim

      As I recall, he already had a PhD in physics/mathematics when he took that job. And he took it precisely because it was easy, thus giving him ample time to devote to his writing on physics.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:25 am |
  31. rudix

    Albert my is the greatest ever...but he is wrong and the proof is at wwwTheDimensionMachineDDTcom there is faster than the speed of light...and you can read all the evidence there....

    March 16, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • chinaman03

      i hope you wrote that book in something other that english, since what you wrote here is grammatically messed up.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • FastEddie

      If only they would send their work to a reputable scientific journal for peer-review, they could be famous and make a fortune! Unless of course it's all b.s.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • max

      traveling faster than light will send you back a fortnight.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
  32. Bee

    The article says the Einstein's equation is for the speed of light. Am I missing something? I thought that the "c" in the equation stood for the speed of light and that the equation is for energy: Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Excuse me if someone else already mentioned this, but I did not have time to read all the comments. If I'm right, the author of the piece needs to go back to his basic Einstein!

    March 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Bee

      OK, I looked at it again, and they've got it right now.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • Miles Veritatis

      If you don't understand the necessity for C to equal the limit of velocity as F and m approach infinity before Einstein's equation is true, it sounds like you need to go back to your basic Einstein course aka beginning Calculus and high school Physics.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
      • E

        That's the conversion between energy and mass (e.g., a thermonuclear explosion going off). Einstein used the famous thought experiment of one end of a box emitting light (box gets displaced in space), the packet of light traveling, then hitting the other end (box gets displaced back) to derive it.

        Bee was correct. I suggest you read up on your Einstein for this article.

        It was Einstein's expansion on the Lorentz transformation that led to the light barrier concept.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • jsc

      You can rearrange any equation and solve for the missing variable. So if you know the mass and the energy, then c (the speed of light) would equal the square root of (energy divided by mass).

      March 16, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
  33. Navin Johnson

    this is what science is. test, question. re-test, question, re-test and question. this is what they are doing. as science has been established for the last 500 years.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Bee

      Yes, you are absolutely right about that. Many people don't understand what's involved in the scientific method. Science education leaves a lot to be desired. Why are we so far behind so many other countries?

      March 16, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
      • E

        actually, it's observe, make a testable hypothesis, test AND analyze, then revise hypothesis before looping.

        everyone forgets the hypothesize, which implies you have to think up an explanation to test.

        I can ask "why's the sky blue" til I'm blue in the face. But, if I don't hypothesize that gas molecules scatter the blue wavelength of light and test that statement, then I'm stuck not advancing.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • ArranWebb

      All science is conjecture. (K. P.)

      March 16, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Rationalist

      Because we have cave dwellers and neanderthals in places like Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas who have ZERO concept of science, run their lives based on belief in magical creatures and talking snakes, and are determined to run your life based on the same beliefs.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  34. 9Dvances

    Maybe ultimately there is no time or infinite mass? So travel across the universe would be possible.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • chemmajor

      You are free to travel about the universe (at your expense) and blog about your findings when you return. If you arrive before you leave, you will get the Nobel Prize in physics even sooner than your return.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
      • 9Dvances

        Fair enough. Maybe when I reach the state of ultimate existence I will. Until then I must live conventionally like most people do.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:06 am |
  35. brad

    Science just explains Gods work.. that's all.. of course you could believe everything came from NOTHING.. and eyes took 90million years to evolve.. imagine the lunacy if you take some of those thoughts to their final conclusion.. but believe what you want.... its ok.. someone's right, someone's wrong.. unfortunately we'll never have a reference point.. so.. my odds are God exists..

    March 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • Navin Johnson

      You all also believe everything came from nothing. God came from nothing and God created everything. So everything cam from nothing. In your own words.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
      • God

        Touché my good man – touché.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
      • 9Dvances

        Nothing does not exist.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • TAK

      Yes, someone is wrong. It's you.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • sonic10158

      please, enough with the useless Science vs Religion debates in these articles -_-

      completely unrelated

      March 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
      • Miles Veritatis

        Here! Here! It's about time somebody said it!

        March 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
      • PABLO

        Amen

        March 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • krivka

      brad.... Eureka! Who wold have believed you have answerd every question there is in the entire 6,000 year history of the world. Good job! No, Great job.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • David M

      It's all a matter of what you believe, or chose to believe. Personally, I believe God created the heavens and the earth, and he went from there. For those who say it all 'just happened' by way of evolution, I just have one question. Why is there something, instead of nothing? That's the missing piece from Darwin't book 'The Origin of the Species'. He seemed to omit the explanation of the "origin" of species. He talked about evolution, but not origin. So, that alone casts a dim light on evolution.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
      • Chris

        You can get everything from nothing if everything is really nothing. At any rate, on what basis do you assume that the gods of mythology actually have anything to do the eternal? Because they said so? If I may mangle a quote from Hawking, "if there is a god, there isn't much for her to do."

        March 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
      • mendrys

        David, let me guess...You've never read the book and really have no idea what's in it.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • tahitianflame

      Nice to know that Einstein was as smart as we thought he was :^) until it is proven however..it is still theory..and theory is not science it is thought in that direction.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
      • E

        The atomic clock experiments, GPS synchronization, gravitational lensing, etc. are quite a number of real world proofs in Einstein's favor.

        I'd say the science finally caught up with the theory.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Deez

      It's really quite simple. If you don't know something, such as what happened before the Big Bang, then you don't know. That's it. It doesn't imply ANYTHING else. The only point of making a guess of things you don't know is if you plan on trying to prove it and/or reproduce it. You can't make a guess that "God did it" and stop there.

      March 16, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
  36. glenglen

    test

    March 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
    • Navin Johnson

      If God had wanted us to be on the internet he would have given Eve an Apple.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
      • David M

        But nstead, He gave Adam a Wang.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
  37. Alexian

    If god had wanted us to travel faster than the speed of light he would have given us warp engines.

    March 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • Peter

      That which you refer to as God is nothing more than you subconscious mind asking your conscious mind about answers to questions from your fearful ego. There is no God you monkeys!

      March 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
      • Lane Votapka

        That's a pretty secular view for a guy named Peter

        March 16, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
      • Humor

        Hi, I'm humor. Have we met?

        March 16, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
      • p-body

        religion, science, true atheism(belief in nothing including science), religion-rejection, science-rejection. They are all just views of certain occurrences and experiences. Philosophy would give insight on how all knowledge is just a big theory backed by a feeling of belief and evidence which can be hard or based on feelings and certain programmings in our thinking patterns by our thought predecessors that taught us everything we know. Who is to disprove that the universe was born five minutes ago from the moment you read this comment with every piece of false evidence of a universe existing longer than that and false memories of everything before that time the universe was born. That is the Russell Hypothesis. You can't disprove it or prove it. unless you go back in time until the universe actually began. It is like how god itself may actually exist but not the one christians and muslims believe in. Funny note, Buddhism kind of avoids answering those types of questions and approaches things in a less controversial way that could survive certain religion destroying facts. my main point is don't just dismiss religion or science, true science wouldn't do any of that since science is actually just a way of studying. religion is just a certain way of thinking or studying since in the end everyone is trying to arrive at the answer of the same question of "Why and How?". The answer is 42

        March 16, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
      • Paul Cheok

        Hi Peter,

        By a simple reasoning, if there is no God, then the word GOD should not exist, right?

        Paul

        March 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
      • Peter

        Paul,
        IMO, there is most likely that which most people think of as God, but it is not a God of Men, anymore than it is a God to my cat ... I think it may be okay as sentient beings to think that there may be a God. The problem is that once you believe in one you are delusional.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • logic

      if god wanted us to kill each other, he'd give us guns... oh wait...

      March 16, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
  38. mario

    all scientists are always "may be right".

    March 16, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Todd Beaucoudray

      As opposed to religious people who're always certain.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
    • JonnyJive5

      That's what's so beautiful about science. It's never right and just keeps getting better and better and better... (Are you enjoying your computer?)

      March 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
      • David S

        Absolutely! Just as much as I am enjoying nuclear weapons, bombs and explosives, global carbon emission levels, smog, and environmental degradation, to name a few. Better and better and better and better, without exception! Yay science!

        March 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • HappyMadison

      And maybe one day you will decide to pick up a book and find out why that is the case. Or continue being ignorant. Unfortunately most people go for the latter.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
  39. justmeanddog

    I have always thought of the State of “Infinite Mass” as being that point at which there is no more Space into which mass may be compressed. If this is indeed the case then I suspect that the “physical Laws” we all love so much do not apply to such a point since such Laws need Space, Time, Matter and Energy to function. So if you eliminate Space and probably Time then you need a whole new set of Laws to describe such a Matter/Energy State. One thing is certain; we cannot go there and directly measure what is happening. But maybe there is no Cosmic speed limit therein.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • fastfred1

      I always thought the Vatican was the State of “Infinite Mass” ?

      March 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • sunny

      interesting thoughts and a good excerpt from Hamlet😉

      March 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Rickh

      Infinate mass can be observed at Micky D's almost daily..

      March 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
      • Humor

        McDonald's was created so the government could kill poor people.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Not a physicist

      It's called a black hole...🙂

      March 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
      • justmeanddog

        Actually such a point of infinite Mass is called a Singularity. A black hole is the terminology used to describe the visible effect on Space-Time created by the Singularity. Not that that would matter to you if you happen to get sucked into the aforesaid Black Hole by the Gravitational effect of the Singularity. Since you would be stretched out like Spaghetti just before you were torn into very small pieces.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • 9Dvances

      Maybe time travel does exist, because ultimately time does not?

      March 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
      • Miles Veritatis

        Of course time travel exists. We all do it constantly: toward the future at the normal rate.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
      • AGuest9

        If it did, the past would be in a constant state of flux.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
  40. twistypurple@aol.com

    "Who died and made Canadians the smartest most intellectual people on the Earth eh?"

    ...all the people who were smarter than the Canadians?

    March 16, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • Jon

      I'm still alive.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
  41. justmeanddog

    Why should there be, or not be, a Universal speed limit? Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it opens up many avenues of thought. On the one hand the existence of an upper speed limit infers the existence of a built-in “Control” mechanism of some sort. While the lack of such a limit infers that for certain situations “Effect” may precede “Cause” and this just throws our view of the Universe completely open to possibilities we cannot even begin to imagine. But all Science can tell us so far is that there appears to be a Cosmic speed limit at somewhere close to 300,000 km/sec. And it is invariable with respect to the observer’s frame of reference. Energy and Matter are defined by how they interact within what we call Space-Time and within that framework the rules are rigid. But we also suspect that Space-Time or just Space, if you will, does not have to follow the rules. We are a long way from having this Frog, we call our Universe, completely dissected so who knows what we will find. With Visible Matter and Detectable Energy being only about 4-5% of the Frog I would suspect that there are indeed, to paraphrase Hamlet, more possibilities in this Universe than are Dreamt of in our Philosophy.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Peter

      Something in 5 dimensions controls the creation of 3 dimensional space. IMO, the speed of light is related to the rate at which the fabric of space is constantly built and destroyed, thereby giving it existence in the time dimension. Therefore, anything moving from place to place cannot do so faster than the rate at which the canvas (space) is being built, ergo the speed of light as the limit. But, we eventually may find a way to use a 5-dimensional variable to control how far from any given point we reattach to the fabric of space, thereby providing warp speed.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
      • rahul

        interesting hypothesis!

        March 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • JonnyJive5

      Speed is relative. There are some objects in the universe travelling away from us faster than the speed of light (or we are travelling away from them) and that's why we can't see them. But from their perspective they are standing still.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
      • Answerman28

        Yes they are moving away from us faster than light but they are not moving faster than light and neither are we, it's all the space in between expanding.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
      • Dreadcor

        False. There is no such thing as faster than the speed of light. The closer one gets to travelling at the speed of light, the more space in the direction one is travelling is compressed, until eventually, if you were able to somehow reach the speed of light, space in the direction you were travelling would be compressed to zero, and that direction would simply no longer exist from your point of view. From the vantage point of a photon, it exists in a two dimensional universe. For more insight into these facts, look up Lorentz transformation.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • E

        Finally.

        Someone else who actually understands the Lorentz transformation and the light barrier.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
  42. Glenc

    Warp 9 Mr. Crusher .... Make it so. ..... Or not. Puts an end to UFOs. No society is going to invest in a lot of one way missions.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Mercury32

      It does no such thing. First, you assume travel through normal space, that may not be the case. Second, you ignore generation ships, which are entirely possible. Third, if a creatures lifespan were longer and they could approach say 90% of LS (c), then they might not be looking at one way trips. If you live to 400, what's a 20 year trip there and 20 back again.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
      • Glenc

        Will you listen to yourself "normal space" as opposed to what "subspace"? Any reality to "subspace"? No. As for beings that live a long time, great. So, why would they travel all this way and just kinda fly around? Cut up some cows? Mess up some wheat fields. I mean if they are smart enough to fly hundreds of light years, should be smart enough to learn a local language. Get Rosetta stone off the Internet or something. Sorry, they don't exist and never have. Light speed really keeps us separated from the rest of the stars. Time to stand up on our own and accept it is up to us.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
  43. wavejump1100

    i am not a religious person however i do believe god created the universe with such vast distances between stars and the speed of light being the fastest speed obtainable, purposely to prevent life forms from different galaxies to be able to contact each other and invariably go to war with each other. its like a built in universal peace plan. the distances are too great and the maximum speeds are too slow for contact to ever occur.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • RobM

      If god wanted peace by spreading different peoples out then why is it that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are all so close together?

      March 16, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
      • Martin

        +1. Not to mention, dropping his "chosen people" right into the middle of that hornets nest. Sounds like one sick puppy, if you buy into the whole "giant man in she sky who grants wishes, and prevents us from traveling in space in case we attack anyone" theory.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • Peter

        If God wanted idiots to worship him he would have Men create him ... Oh wait! ... We did! ... Never mind!

        March 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Jethro

      But the millions and millions of lives lost to wars here on earth were OK with the divine plan. Cool. Great job, God!

      March 16, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
      • DJ

        You confuse what the Bible really says as inspired by God with what religion has twisted.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • johnny5

      So....It's alright to fight amongst ourselves. Maybe if God were so omnipotent, he would have made us all the same with the same religion so as not to fight amongst ourselves.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
      • billtouch

        One religion and "the same"? How can that fix anything. Brothers and sisters fight and sometimes kill each other.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
      • DJ

        The question someone that really wants to know the truth about God should ask is "God has allowed the world to continue in this state, why?" For those who really study the Bible, the answer is there. Many though don't put forth the effort to understand it. The Bible makes it clear WHY God has allowed suffering and also tells what he is going to do about it. Revelation 21:3,4.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
      • Peter

        DJ, if you really want to get closer to understanding what you call God, then I would recommend studying math and science to figure out how things work instead of reading some book of gibberish written by some long forgotten monks in some monastery.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
      • thomas

        I'm with you Peter. DJ, the question I have for god is, why bother? Why bother with all this nonsense. A real, benevolent God, wouldn't permit a world like this. If there is a god, he's not particularly nice. Not to my mom who died painfully of cancer and never hurt a fly and in fact would stop people from hurting any animal or person. Or the victims of the Crusades or the Taliban. I've read the bible and it doesn't seem to answer that question anywhere. All I get from DJs and religion is answers to the questions that don't matter. When you really corner the devout about why it's all the way it is, they never really have any idea whatsoever when it comes down to it. Thanks for listening!

        March 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • Dark Matter

      E=M(c squared) doesn't work in warp space that why warp drive ships can travel faster than the speed of light. There is no dark energy in warp field space.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
      • E

        What does energy-matter conversion have to do with the light barrier???

        March 16, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
      • L D Fox

        before the big bag there was nothing, so your statment that nothing deosn't excist is crazy.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • MikeM

      Even God himself cannot travel faster than light.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
      • fastfred1

        Bet God herself can though.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
      • fastfred1

        I'll bet God herself can though.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • awaysaway

      Let me get this straight... you are not religious but you (a) do believe in God, (b) believe he created us, (c) believe he created other beings on other planets, and (d) you can comprehend the mind of God and believe he purposely put some distance between us all. Awesome. Thank goodness you are not religious... the mind boggles at what you might come up with if you were. Its a nice idea dude... but I think you jumped the shark on this one.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • JonnyJive5

      @DJ
      The Bible doesn't make anything clear.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  44. Primus

    I had already done my own calculations confirming that Einstein was indeed correct. I was prepared to publish if necessary, but this latest news appears to have made it unnecessary for me to go to the trouble. Mr. Greene is in no more danger of falling off his chair than he was during the puzzlement over pons/fleischmann. This current goose egg is essentially from that same basket.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • lagtat

      And then you woke up and realized it was all a funny dream!

      March 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
      • Primus

        lagtat... OK, you're on to me. Damn! Can't a guy have any fun?

        March 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
  45. Skeptimist

    Max velocity for particles of matter appears to be locked. However, information about their properties appears to pass between particles instantaneously. It's attributed to a weird phenomenon called quantum entanglement. It seems to supersede spacial separation and render velocity meaningless. That may offer a hint as to why we can sometimes remember the future.

    CNN usually isn't this much fun.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • awaysaway

      No we cant sometimes remember the future! When did we all agree to that? Your text was normal, normal, normal... and then right off the deep end. LOL

      March 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
      • vejadu

        dejavu

        March 16, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
      • Jason C

        awaysaway, you do realize that is exactly what déjà vu is right? For example, when you have a dream about something, then that something happens in a perfectly identical way to the way you dreamed it all the way down to the who, what, when, where and why. Wouldn't that be considered remembering the future?

        March 16, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • Rickh

      But what about remembering the past...I'm pushing 70 and seems to be challenge, also.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • cart-b4-horse

      Entanglement doesn't preclude that the future states of the two particles are predetermined at the time of their separation.
      Remember that if you mess with one, you break the entanglement. That supports the alternate theory that each particle is acting on it's own, set out with a script to read from if no-one intervenes.

      ...but particle physicists don't like the complications that come with the idea of the predetermined states, so they stick with faster-than-light entanglement. I don't buy it.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • E

      The interaction from quantum entanglement was later found to be limited by the light barrier.

      Sorry. No, FTL shortcut yet.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
  46. AEjr

    Something I don't understand.

    1. If time slows down when approaching the speed of light, why doesen't light stop (uh, instantaneously)

    2. If I'm riding on the head of a light beam and carrying my turned on flashlight, if I move the flash light from behind me to ahead of me, is light going faster than its own speed? Is my arm going faster?

    3. I'm riding in front of a light beam. another light beam is 1 light second (instant) distance away coming right at me, how long does it take to reach me?

    There is just something about relativity that doesen't seem to work. I think its that whole time thing.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Peter

      So far, there has been a mountain of evidence to support the theory. It is usually difficult to grasp because it is counter to the way our minds have evolved to adapt to an environment in which the phenomena described by the theory are not perceived by us.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Matt

      It makes no difference whether you move the light source or not. If you move the light source you would also have to move the distance of measurement otherwise you aren't accurately measuring the distances the light travels which will inaccurately measure the speed at which the light travels.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Chris

      I'm not sure you understand the theory. Light in a vacuum is always observed to travel at the speed c (this is a constant relative velocity). Objects with mass cannot accelerate to the speed c, hence your questions about moving with a beam of light don't make sense. Your first question is commonly explained with the term photons are ageless. One way to think of it is that all objects move through spacetime at the speed c. The faster you move through space the slower you move through time, but the magnitude of the speed through spacetime is always constant. Hence, photons which travel through space at c don't travel through time. It's a bit of a rough demo but it gives the basic idea.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Aaron

      Simple Answer is that it's called relativity for a reason.
      Answers below:

      1. If time slows down when approaching the speed of light, why doesen't light stop (uh, instantaneously)

      Relative to you time's effect on the photon has stopped. Relative to the photon time is normal though. What you're talking about is a change in velocity which is something that is relative to time but not bound by it.

      2. If I'm riding on the head of a light beam and carrying my turned on flashlight, if I move the flash light from behind me to ahead of me, is light going faster than its own speed? Is my arm going faster?

      Relative to you yes! Remember that mass supposedly increases to infinity as you approach the speed of light as well. Since photos are supposed to be mass-less they will always be able to get closer to that speed than you can in the first place.

      3. I'm riding in front of a light beam. another light beam is 1 light second (instant) distance away coming right at me, how long does it take to reach me?
      Depends on your point of reference but I would say a fraction of a second.
      There is just something about relativity that doesen't seem to work. I think its that whole time thing.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
      • cart-b4-horse

        If you are riding on a photon going C, there is no distance in front of you, time dilation is time to space contraction. At C, the entire length of the universe is contracted down to zero, and time has accelerated to infinite speed – the future of the universe goes by in an instant – everywhere at once...but of course you can't get to C, so that never happens.

        March 16, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
      • E

        cartb4horse got it right.

        in all frames of reference, everything including photons will not travel FTL.

        Space infinitely contracts in the direction of travel, so there's no distance for the photon to cover in that direction. In the opposite direction, it will appear to leave at the speed of light and no faster, if it appears to move at all.

        That's why it's not simple or Newtonian relativity. It's Einstein's special relativity, derived from Lortenz's work.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • fastfred1

      First explain to me what light is. When it leaves the sun it takes approx 7.5 minutes at light speed to reach us.
      when it hit's the earth....what...it's absorbed ,does it bounce off, We see light because of the dust particles ??
      Is it really there or did we make it up like Time to measure how many days we have till we get the weekend off.
      So many questions and so little time....There it is again... Time. Past doesn't exist...Future is only potentual...
      there is only NOW the present..

      March 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
      • Miles Veritatis

        Please define "potentual"; never saw that one in the dictionary.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
      • Chris R

        Light is a duality in that it is both observably a particle and observably a wave phenomenon. Yes, it's counter intuitive but science does have to be intuitive.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • OrionStyles

      Some things to wrap your head around.
      -Everything is moving at the speed of light. Most people do not know that this is the "foundation" of relativity.
      -The speed of light is a constant. Problems most people run into happen here: If you are traveling at 99% the speed of light, and light overtakes you, it overtakes you at 100% the speed of light, not 1% the speed of light. If you are traveling 99% the speed of light, and hit light head on, it still hits you at 100% the speed of light, not 199%.
      -Put those 2 things together, and it becomes easier to understand that the measurements you are making are RELATIVE to what you are measuring.

      example: Knowing that point A and B are both traveling at the speed of light (EVERYTHING is traveling at the speed of light) and that light is ALWAYS a constant speed (regardless of anything) the measurement you are making is actually one of "time" and "space" to get bearings on the 2 points.

      If this seems like an abstract system of measurement pigeon holed to account for our puny perceptions of the universe, the problem with arguing against the "theory" of Relativity is that it actually works. (GPS relies on relativity to work correctly, and when you do not use relativity, GPS does not measure your location correctly)

      March 16, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • PABLO

      AEjr, read a book. Pretend you understand it.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
      • Harsh Reality

        Wow, not just an A Hole, but arrogant too.

        March 17, 2012 at 2:22 am |
  47. Einstien Jr

    Something I don't understand.

    1. If time slows down when approaching the speed of light, why doesen't light stop (uh, instantaneously)

    2. If I'm riding on the head of a light beam and carrying my turned on flashlight, if I move the flash light from behind me to ahead of me, is light going faster than its own speed? Is my arm going faster?

    3. I'm riding in front of a light beam. another light beam is 1 light second (instant) distance away coming right at me, how long does it take to reach me?

    There is just something about relativity that doesen't seem to work. I think its that whole time thing.

    March 16, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      I'm no physicist, but a friend who was into physics told me that the answer to your question is that your scenario couldn't happen because mass increases with velocity. Matter (a spaceship/human) traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass and this is not possible in our universe/dimension.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
      • dave

        it is theoritically possible... it just doesn't happen in nature...oh wait, black holes

        March 16, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
      • dave

        and my lazy couch spelling sucks

        March 16, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
      • b4bigbang

        Therefore, a better question to ask is "at what velocity do relativistic effects become significant?" I seem to remember someone saying that a spaceship would be ok up to about half the speed of light.
        Anyone else know more detail re this?

        March 16, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
      • Skeptimist

        It does happen – within the event horizon of a black hole. That's the approximate point where the acceleration of gravity exceeds the speed of light. Unfortunately, the relativity equation (E=MC^2) runs off the backboard at that point because M (mass) becomes infinite. That's why the hole is black. And heavy.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
      • jo prime

        no physical thing can be infinite. the proof is: we are still here. If one single particle became infinite then there would be no room for anything else.

        March 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
      • tim

        The mass of a black hole is not infinite, but the density is. A black hole is when all of the matter of a star is compressed into a single, dimensionless point. This is called a singularity, and is present at the center of every black hole. What is interesting is that all of the matter of the black hole actually gets compressed right out of our universe. All that is left of it is just the immense gravity. Kind of strange, really.

        March 17, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • dave

      Jr, you have alot to learn... oh wait, you have very little to learn. You missed it.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Jon

      1. Light and time are two different things. When approaching the speed of light, time slows down but light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. Relativity can even be observed here on Earth. Believe it or not, if you were standing on the roof of a skyscraper and I was standing on the ground, time would move a tiny bit slower for me because I am closer to the center of gravity of Earth. It's a tiny amount but can be measured.

      2. You don't add your own speed to the speed of light. If you are traveling at that speed, then the light is as well.

      3. One light second.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
      • dave

        Jon, you pass

        March 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
      • Craig

        One of the early experiments when man finally achieved earth orbit was to prove/disprove this very idea. In very simple terms, a pair of clocks were set to match. One stayed on earth while the other went into orbit. When it came back, the two were compared, and there was a difference. Now, that's not exactly what was done, but it's close enough for a simple explanation...and further supports the theory. It's probably something that can never be "proved" in the classical sense, but the evidence keeps mounting that it's likely right.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
      • Skeptimist

        NASA ran the actual experiment on an Apollo mission. Two atomic clocks were precisely synchronized and one stayed on Earth while the other made the round trip to the moon. Upon it's return, the moon clock was slower precisely as predicted by Einstein's equations. I enjoyed that a lot more than the bag of rocks.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
      • Grady

        That is why GPS satellites have their clocks running at different times than earth clocks

        March 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • almac

        if time slows down as you approach the speed of light, but light still travels at 186000 miles per second, how long is a second?

        March 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
      • tim

        Skeptimist – Almost correct. The clock that went into orbit was actually ahead, not behind, of an earth-bound clock. The reason for this is simple. Gravity also slows down time/clocks, just like traveling at high velocity. So clocks nearer to the earth's center, and thus under more gravitational influence, run slower than a clock in orbit under less gravitational influence. (The orbital speed of the clock would offset this only a little, because the speed of orbit is so small compared to the speed of light). This is why time slows down so much near black holes.

        March 17, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • David

      Ride on many light beams there, Sparky?

      March 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Chris

      I'm no cern boffin, got though a grasp of it. The paradox, two space craft approach each other on a collision course,both approaching (but not at) the speed of light. What is the joint approaching speed? Crack this queston, give youselves free entry to the next round.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
      • COSMIC

        It really doesn't matter, they are both going to disintergate at collision.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
      • PABLO

        Pay attention to LOL, Kate and ChrisR. Some of these writers at least understand the basics of relativity. Others cannot contribute to a logical or technical discussion about these matters.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • LOL

      look up "reference frame"

      March 16, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Einstein Jr

      I guess I am going at the speed of light, I turn around 1 second after passing a clock and take a look at it,
      the time doesen't change, the frame is frozen.

      How can time stop? Something about relativity that doesn't make sense, think its time.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
      • PABLO

        Read a book Einstein. And please change your name. It is very inappropriate for someone so uninformed about the subject.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Kate

      Einstein himself imagined riding on a beam of light. The correct statement of special relativity is that the speed of light is constant in every reference frame. When you ride with your flashlight, the light appears to travel at speed c in either direction. When someone "at rest" with regard to you and your flashlight looks at the beam of light, it again appears to travel at c in either direction. The apparent inconsistencies are fixed by the fact that clocks and measures differ in the two frames of reference.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • Chris R

      1) If you were in a space ship traveling at close to the speed of light your clocks would work as normal. One second would tick by as one second of time. However, if someone was observing your ship from the outside your clock would seem to be ticking very slowly. If you looked at their clocks it would look like time was speeding up. In all cases the clock is telling the right time but only for your specific frame of reference. Your frame of reference would be your space ship. The observes frame of reference would include your space ship. So 'time' according the photon moving at the speed of light is ticking along as it should.
      2) The speed of light is not additive. So if you are in a car traveling at 100mph and you tun on your headlights the light is not traveling at the speed of light plus 100mph.
      3) Same deal as two.

      Just so you know these are the questions that got Einstein thinking about the speed of light and what it means.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  48. Warren Bruce

    Every now and then, just to remind me how stupid human beings really are, I read the responses to one of these articles. It amazes me that the internet is a place to collect such a group of people who know so little.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Joe

      Warren: You are so right !!

      March 16, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      Warren Bruce: "Every now and then, just to remind me how stupid human beings really are, I read the responses to one of these articles. It amazes me that the internet is a place to collect such a group of people who know so little."

      And this goes double for 'kenchandammit'.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
      • kenchandammit

        I believe, since science cannot currently explain EVERYthing, that the existence of god is therefore proven. Atheists believe that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Since this is obviously impossible, it is therefore proven that, instead, a man up in the sky who looks exactly like us and is invisible magically created everything out of nothing.

        March 17, 2012 at 3:27 am |
    • Andy in Oz

      Agreed, it seems that many on the various fora these days have simply enough nouse to be able to turn on their PC or other device and navigate to CNN or some such site to leave their mindless comments.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • skeptik2

      You're absolutely correct in your assessment. These are folks who know precious little about quantum mechanics and just need to get off their daily jollies. Pitiful.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
      • E

        when i studied solid state engineering (quantum physics), I was warned that anyone who claimed to understand it was lying.

        are you presuming to be one who does?

        March 17, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • martijn

      It's what happens when you have John Smith read these articles. They don't understand, respond to them nevertheless. In the old times John Smith was the working class cut off from this stuff (luckily). Now every mentally challenged person can and will have their say

      March 16, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Miles Veritatis

      As a Calculus/Physics teacher, I was considering trying to respond to some of the comments of people who like declaring their ignorant ideas to the masses but decided that, like everything else they've tried to understand, it would probably go right over their heads. Nice to see that someone else out there doesn't listen to the blog world as if it were reality.

      March 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
    • chris laurie

      And you have the time to respond to them. Sounds like you need a little more light.

      November 29, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  49. kenchandammit

    I believe there is an invisible man in the sky and that he knows EVERYthing. I believe that he loves me so much that he will make me burn for eternity if I look at my neighbor's boobs, which he created. I know that this is true because someone told me when I was a little kid.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • awesome!

      ^ love it, you win an internet cookie!!

      March 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
  50. Chris

    If I was supping a intergerlatic atomic gargle blaster at the resteraunt at the end of the universe,watching the galaxies fall off the edge, would the priority be pay pal, amex, oh omg here I am reycled again,?

    March 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  51. Colin McMahon

    You're all , like, SO DUMB at stuff. This is the "Grey" area where aliens take over. In other words, politics and realism and book sales and school in crisis outweight stuff like, "Like, OMFG... wrong as space travel and WMDs in the Gulf!"
    At this rate you'll ALL beat me to Supermodel.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-ygECjmf-4&w=640&h=390]

    March 16, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
  52. Colin McMahon

    WRONG. v>c
    Kate Moss's "I'll cut you off if you don't about-face that" British "science community" close.
    ("Close", like as in a sale or deal)

    March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  53. Faith-Isn't-A-Preacher

    And let there be light.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  54. Ja Ja - Medina

    I speak Spanish, and we say "ja ja" because in spanish te "J" sounds like the "H" in English, and the "H" is mute in spanish, weird, I know

    March 16, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Michael Taylor

      What does an H sound like in spanish?

      March 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
      • chicflip

        It's irrelevant, but ... ASH in French

        March 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • Yakobi

      So why don't you say "xa xa" as the "x" in Spanish also sounds like an "h" in English?

      March 16, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  55. Claude Gothic

    I am sorry everyone, I am a virgin

    March 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      My daughter begs to differ...I'm being hijacked here!!!!

      March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • I-Hate-Timewasters

        Why waste people's time, Mr. Claude. You're totally irrelevant. Please go back to your bar and have some beer. at least there your buddies appreciate your "humor".

        March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I must admit, I am a bit perplexed as to why you'd admit to incest on this forum?

        November 30, 2012 at 12:02 am |
  56. Andrew Phillips

    Einstein didn't discover the speed of light. It was well established before he was born. He discovered that the speed remains constant regardless of one's inertial frame of reference (which is not particularly relevant to this story).

    March 16, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • bigdakine2

      Andrew its relevant cuz Einstein was the first to propose that the SOL was the maximum speed that information or matter could travel.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • Uncle Joe

        So....Andrew's right...Einstein never even even measured "the speed of light", and could not be right or wrong about its "speed" as the author suggested.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • Andrew Phillips

        Pretty sure that was Maxwell–could be wrong.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • splash

      The first true measurement of light-speed came in 1676 by a fellow named Olaf Roemer. He noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. He calculated that the speed of light was something like 2.14 x 108 meters per second. This measurement, considering its antiquity, method of measurement, and 17th century uncertainty in exactly how far Jupiter was from the Earth, is surprisingly close to the modern value of 2.99792458 x 108 meters per second. These modern values are obtained using devices called laser interferometers, which can very precicely pin down speeds and distances.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • twistypurple@aol.com

      you're mixing apples, oranges and pears.

      all at light-speed LOL

      March 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  57. Tom

    Anyone from any country can make fun of the GOP, it makes the world a better place.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
  58. Mark

    always someone talking about god, in every article, we get it you love god. aahhhhhh

    March 16, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
  59. ejhowe

    186411.357 mi.

    March 16, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Almost Correct

      Your precision would be laudable, but your mathematical expression conveys distance, not speed...just sayin'...

      March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  60. Alfred the Great

    Was there every any doubt – not a hint!

    March 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      I did hear that the excitement over this experiment was such that Stephen Hawking shifted 3um in his chair and gurgled audibly.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
      • jim

        Was that supposed to be funny?

        March 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • F Robinson

      A tachyon is a hypothetical subatomic particle that always moves faster than light.A tardyon is a particle that travels slower than light. Interesting question remains how Tachyons interact with Tardions. From 1970 this question remains a puzzle in Quantum Field Theory.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • jo prime

      yall r wrong. The earth is spinning. The entire galaxy is moving. add those figures to light speed. faster than light happens in front of us every day. C should stand for Einstiens grade.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
      • Matt

        Learn a bit about relativity before you go spewing that Newtonian nonsense everywhere ;D

        Two particles whose speeds 'should' add up to more than the speed of light actually do not. If I'm sitting on earth and I see two space ships moving in opposite directions at .75 c (that's 75% of the speed of light), you would expect a person sitting on one spaceship to see the other one moving at about 1.5 c (.75 + .75 = 1.5). In reality, people on the spaceship would only see each other moving at something around .9c (very rough estimation). I honestly don't know how to explain why without a full-blown lecture.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
      • jim

        You are probably a troll and I should ignore you, but in case you are not, thats where you are wrong. It does not matter what velocity one is travelling relative to anything else, ALL observers measure C the same. Its not like classic Newtonian physics where is a guy in a moving car throws a beer can out the window that you add the velocity of the car to the velocity of the beer can to get its final speed.
        With light, time itself slows down in the moving observer so that the speed of light (which is the distance it travels in a period of time) stays the same. Space and time are intricately entwined in what Einstein called Spacetime. Time is not the constant thing, separate from space, that we percieve it to be. A second is not a second to all observers, and there is no such thing as "now". There are an infinite number of "nows", one for every possible observer travelling at every possible velocity. As Einstein put it "Reality is just an illusion-albeit a very persistant one"

        March 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
      • SB

        You... must be trolling/joking. I have to believe that.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
      • Mike

        Time slows down?? The Vulcan Science Directorate has deemed time travel impossible....

        March 16, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
  61. Kannan

    300,000 kilometers !!! Wow a metric term. Now I can relate to what I studied:)

    March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • wrm

      ... per second.

      Should have stayed awake for the dimensional analysis lectures.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
  62. MikeForNewYawk

    If everything around us is restricted to the speed of light, how could we accurately measure anything faster?

    March 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Plus anything going faster than light would have an opposite time vector...how do we handle measuring THAT?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
      • ken

        Time is NOT a vector in the directional sense. Stop being misleading.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
      • DBLA

        I have an amp that goes to 300,001.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • momoya

      Well, you could measure the speed of a particle going faster than light by using multiple data sources.. For instance, if the distance between two detecters is a "light second," and you generate a particle from one detector and measure it hitting the other particle before a "light second" has passed, that particle goes faster than light.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
      • Rich

        Seriously. It's not rocket science... it's physics.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
      • PABLO

        In one sentence, you use light second as a distance (correct). In the next sentence you use light second as a measurement of time (incorrect). Read a book ; be consistent.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • Kevin

      We could easily measure something going faster than light.... speed = distance / time, right?

      So we take two clocks, calibrate them exactly, then separate them by a large distance. I send my signal to you and record the time it went out. You record the time you received it. If the distance divided by the elapsed time is greater than 300,000 km/s, then the signal travelled faster than light.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • Kevin is Correct

        That is the basic method. However, a more accurate method is a single clock that is situated at a location between the emission point and the target, with the clock signal being transmitted to both location using identical waveguides or transmission media. Regardless of the method used, "distance" becomes the key measurement variable.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • Not a scientist

        Must be measured in a vacuum, and thats not to say that anything going faster than the speed of light could be properly measured because its properties would be beyond current understanding

        March 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Patrick

      It's fast, but it's still a finite speed that requires time to traverse a distance.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Steve From NH

        From the reference point of the faster than light particle, wouldn't it have to get to its destination before it left? From what I understand, the photon that leaves a star a million light years away hits my eyeball the exact same time it left – from the point of view of the photon. Is that right?

        March 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
  63. Luther51

    Einstein may have been right about the speed of light, but the REAL question is, "Where is Einstein now?"

    All of his theories and all science has still been unable to disprove the existence of God. Increasingly, the Big Bang Theory is losing credibility, but scientists are too stubborn to scrap it because they hate the alternative.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • moto4

      No one is trying to "disprove" it. Learn a little more about free will and you may come to understand the world a little better.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Einstein is sneaking up behind you and wants to eat your brain. It'll be a nice light snack!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Aaron

      Science is and was NEVER ever out to prove or disprove god and really couldn't care less. Science is out to understand, through experimentation, the natural forces underpinning our reality both great and small. Get over yourself and your self righteous ego.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Darren

      Really....

      March 16, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Jason

      "Where is Einstein now" indeed a good question

      Maybe Einstein is sitting right next to God. So possibly the question should be where is God now? Or better yet what makes you so confident in the existence of a mythical being you have only heard of but you can't even think about scientific exploration.

      How nice it must be to stand in the light of science and use your computer and smart phone created by god himself.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Kat

      The Bible has yet to prove the existence of God either.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
      • Rich

        Then again, that's not really its purpose. A roadmap between cities doesn't prove the existence of those cities, either, yet you trust in its accuracy.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • lathebiosas

      Has anyone proved the existence of God? You Christians are hilarious! If you got cancer today would you accept that its God's will or would you turn to science to save your sinful life? All Christians live in hypocrisy.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
      • Don Camp

        We don't turn to science. We turn to the principles of life God built into living things. Science just discovers them.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • alkhuu

      You don't disporve a negative. If I claim an invisible green dragon who lives in the ether of the universe and controls everything, you can't disprove it either. You don't say something exists until there is empirical evidence for it (not conjecture). Otherwise beliefs in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Trolls, the Easter Bunny would all be equally valid (or invalid) logically.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • Flappy

      Proving the existence of God and the Big Bang have nothing to do with each other. Is there any reason why God could not have created the universe in a Big Bang? Why do you think science is out to disprove the existence of God anyway? I think someone sold you a bill of goods.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
      • Ao

        Exactly!

        March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • zhongming

      In case you don't now, the Big Bang theory is actually cutting both ways. It forces God to retreat to a very uncomfortable corner at the beginning of time, but it also conforms the Genesis story that the universe does have a moment of creation. And for many people, the second implication is more intriguing.

      So please don't attack Big Bang theory, which by the way, is very well established.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
      • Rich

        Actually, it doesn't cut both ways unless you assume that God exists within, and therefore because of, the universe. If He's outside of it, that argument is moot.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Chris

      Albert Einstein, AE=MCdust!

      March 16, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • traveller

      "Increasingly, the Big Bang Theory is losing credibility."

      Actually, no... ratings continue to be high.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
      • Steve From NH

        And Penny gets better looking all the time. The other big bang theory is doing pretty well too.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • Rick

      Ummmm no one is trying to disprove God. Why would anyone waste their time trying to disprove the existence of something for which there is not a single thread of evidence. 2nd, if anything, it's the brainwashed religious types are the ones who should be doing the proving with respect to their deities.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
      • Patrick

        Amen to that! LOL.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • RICK

        GEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        March 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Patrick

      Has the existance of god been proven? Logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with the faithful.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • Marley

      Really? Your "God" hasn't been disproven?

      What is this thing you call "God" then?

      You cannot disprove SOME-THING for which you do not know WHAT IT IS. If you cannot LOGICALLY tell us what this thing "God" is ... then how can we disprove it?

      A rational person cannot disprove the existence of SOME-THING for which you do not tell what it is.

      So the PROOF that your "God" does not exist is a LOGICAL PROOF.

      Without one single LOGICAL THOUGHT about what your "God" is, then your "God" is not a SOME-THING and hence, your "God" does not exist.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Steve From NH

      pretty sure you can't disprove the existence of anything. Me, I'm sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Steve From NH

      Science is a lot more right about 'god' than the bible is. Sadly, religion is an attempt to bring "god" down to a level that you can understand, and control. Pretty egotistical and pretentious when you think about it.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • twistypurple@aol.com

      The reason that it's logically impossible to disprove a negative is that somewhere in the universe, at some point in time, it may actually exist. Pick a definition of "God". It is finitely possible that at some point in the history and future of the Universe such a God either actually existed or will exist.

      Question for you.

      Does He exist NOW?
      HERE?

      the only way that you know for sure that He does exist is to define Him in such a way that he cannot fail to exist given the existence of concepts that are obviously and undoubtedly real.

      ...assuming that you're not just a figment of my imagination.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • wavejump1100

      both can exist. god created the big bang along with all the laws of science.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • TransHuman

      Right. Oh, wait – that's not what science is trying to do. You think you're in some sort of war (magic vs science), but the other side doesn't really give a crud. Your religion & beliefs aren't that important to us. Sorry.

      Btw – how's that "proving the existence of God" thing working out for you – chat with any burning bushes lately?

      March 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
  64. falcon20

    There once was a girl from Wight,
    who often traveled faster than light,
    she left town one day, in her usual way,
    and returned on the previous night.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Was she still older the previous day?
      What if she killed her other self when she arrived?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
      • Harsh Reality

        Um, ouch. Good questions!!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
      • The White Rabbit

        42!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
      • Claude Gothic

        Or Zaphod Beeblebrox???

        March 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • Kramer

        I agree with White Rabbit, the answer is 42

        March 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  65. Ousal Dove

    SO, when u boil it down, all the matter in the universe appears to be a solidification of the energy the universe is made of. Sort of a seething froth of nothingness. So what is that energy and where did it come from? Maybe that energy came from God, or maybe the universe is god as we know it??? The conscience of the universe pondering its own existence and we are all part of the process... Keep thinking, keep trying, maybe someday we will have an answer or at least maybe a better question. LOL

    March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Matter = Energy = Matter, they are the SAME THING.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
      • Ousal

        Matter = Energy. I know Claude... that was kinda one of my points, what we think of as solid, become mostly emty space when we look close, and even closer exam show little tiny balls: electron, proton, newtrons, quarks, mason, leptons, etc etc etc, but those appear to be virtual when we look close. That is why i said is appears to be a seething froth of nothingness... Good night, or at this hour should I say good morning... needdd sleeeeep....

        March 17, 2012 at 3:52 am |
    • The White Rabbit

      42

      March 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
      • Claude Gothic

        It's Ford Prefect!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • jim

      Our individual consiousness is the result of tillions of synapses in the brain exchanging tiny packages of chemicals to each other and converting them into energy (called action potentials). That this is true is to me the most mind boggling thing there is. One could say energy arranged in a certain way results in consiousness, sight, feel, hearing, abstract thought etc.
      Maybe on a much larger scale the universe itself if conscious as energy and matter are constantly interconverted. Maybe thats what God is. The universe itself.
      On second thought, its much more likely that I am just weird thinking of this stuff.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • twistypurple@aol.com

      "all the matter in the universe appears to be a solidification of the energy the universe is made of."

      No, all the energy in the universe is much greater than the rest-energy of all the mass in the universe. The complete conversion of universal energy to mass would result in an *equivalent* mass at absolute-zero, with no energy at all, that is to say, in terms of kinetic energy. No rotations, translations or vibrations. The question of course is whether such a state of matter would be stable...probably not, as it probably was the "seed" from which the current Universe sprouted.

      assuming that there wasn't a cluster of mini-masses with near-zero energy as it would take an awfully-long time for such masses to merge into a single mass and give up *all* their energy. An interesting "death of the Universe" problem...how long would it take to form a black-hole containing all the mass and energy of the universe and would it be possible to actually form such a black-hole in the first place?

      March 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
  66. scott

    Nice try atheists.... but we see right through your desperation...

    March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • rmtaks

      ...what?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • lathebiosas

      Desperate? At least we're thinking and testing. Religion is intellectual surrender, just drink the kool-aid and follow the sheople.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
      • twistypurple@aol.com

        how does 2500+ years of religious theory present itself as "intellectual surrender" to you?

        that's not very rational from a so-called rational-thinker

        they just start from a different premise, or at least, go through a different focus-point.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • John

      Wow...clear as the light of day...well done sir...

      March 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • LVatheist

      Alas, it is you ignorant theists whom are the desperate ones – desperately clinging onto an increasingly irrelevant and outdated worldview which rejects reason & logic in favor of belief & devotion to the imaginary. A person who rejects science & our ever increasing knowledge of the mechanics of the universe, is mentally retarded and exhibits themselves as an artifact of human evolution. Stop trying to explain how things work based on a book written in the bronze age, let go of your fantasy of a supernatural being involved in the lives of humans, and embrace the reality of physics & atheism. We WILL evolve beyond your paltry faith...and this kind of science, where it isn't true until it is repeatable – will get us there.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
      • lathebiosas

        Thank you well said.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Kat

      Nice try mythology believers, your desperation is evident in every church on the planet

      March 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  67. JCthatsme

    Why cant they find a gravity particle-wave and inverse the process then we can have hover boards

    March 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Those cause Parkinson's, too!!! AAAHHHH!!!!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • turp Griswald

      Become massless, and the Earth will lose its affinity for you. Actually, you don't even need to become massless – just lighter than air. Two ways to do this (I think). Actually lose mass – or speed up. Get that snow board of yours moving at near light speed, and you can hover to your heart's content.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • E

        Actually, as an object approaches the speed of light, it becomes infinitely massive.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
  68. SpotOn

    And this is the difference between the scientific method and junk science like creationism/intelligent design. The scientific method requires and encourages independent checking and rechecking of experiments and ideas. It also requires eliminating other theories that might explain a result. In this case, the competing theories are: stuff moves faster than light, and the experiment was flawed. The focus now is to determine whether the latter is more likely than the former.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Timetowinialwayswin

      Actually you're just afraid of the concept of God. Or you would not lash out in such childish tempertantrums. Einstein developed a fear for a singular diety aka "God" after his establishment of the solidarity behind the General Theory of Relativity. And it is after this, and yes, this will make you extremely mad, it is after this, that he claimed to be enthralled with the figure of the Nazarene, and claimed no myth could coincide in such a way with his outlook on existence by jumping off the paper int he manner it did. Deal with it.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
      • Claude Gothic

        Ummm...wasn't Einstein a Jew?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
      • Munzter

        Sounds like you're the one throwing the tantrum

        March 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Didn't they find a Neanderthal skull in dinosaur poop once?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
      • Chuck

        No.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Harsh Reality

      It also requires a "result" to be repeatable.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • MrHanson

      Ok. Lets try a simple experiment. Let's take some amino acids and stir them around for a fiew billion years and see if life forms. Life with DNA replication and repair systems/Information processing. Isn't science about provable repeatable experiments? Once we get that first cell to form (without interveaning!) let wait a few hundred millions years and see if we can get organisms to form complete with complex compound eyes, guts, reproductive systems, etc... All by chance. Then finally we can show those silly IDiots.

      I’m Popeye the Darwin man;
      I fabricate all I can.
      I fight to the finish
      To ID diminish;
      I’m Popeye the Darwin man

      March 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
      • turp Griswald

        God was a far more amazing invention than the theory of evolution.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
      • MrHanson

        So is the non-existence of god.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
      • rmtaks

        Fossil records are much better evidence than some guys thousands of years ago claiming something happened.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
      • Zima

        @turp Griswald - maybe evolution is God's idea.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Scott

      Creationism is not science. It's an understanding of a creator that created all of the science that people have used along with trillions of dollars to try and disprove His existence. It's kind of funny watching you science lovers squirm when you can't use science to prove anything involving the creation of the universe.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
      • Zima

        At least we have fun trying. And thanks to science, all of us enjoy much better lives today.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
      • E

        It's not so much funny as it is sad watching all you bible thumpers sanctimoniously use a collection of bedtime stories as authoritative proof of everything involving the creation of the universe.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • Jeff

        The universe is not a creation. Human beings invented the word creation to describe all the things they make. Then one day somebody looked up at infinity and wondered "Who made that?" and "Why?" But both questions are only exercizes in anthropomorphizing reality, an ancient pastime but not suitable for regarding reality. If you really want to know what the universe is, you must first know what you are since everyone is basically the universe taking on the human form. So casting aside all ideology including scientific ideology, one may be able to intuit exactly what one is, directly, through the one portal of perception available to all, never used, not even suspected. Access to this portal takes place in a condition of total internal silence. The slightest murmur from the thoughts and ordinary everyday emotions will drown out the signal coming from within that can present anyone who really cares to know, what is what. Then the debate goes away, along with every conceivable conventional thought process. It is not easy to do this, don't take it lightly, and it can undermine your vaunted will to live.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Rick

        I'm surprised you aren't over in Europe right now trying to burn these scientists as witches as your equally delusional ancestors would have been.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • BethTX

      Don't try to inject logic into this. The worshipers of the invisible sky friend aren't equipped for it.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
      • Claude Gothic

        When did Mighty Mouse become invisible?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
      • MrHanson

        Strawman much?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
      • Scott

        I love people like Beth that claim that their unprovable, zero evidence, illogical belief of creation is better than mine.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • This One Time I'll Tell You

      The experiment wasn't flawed, they just haven't discovered how to get something to travel faster than "c" is all. But it's just a speed. One Mans Magic Is Another Mans Tech. Just give it time and research, there is a way. . .

      Hint: Gravity is a big part of the answer.

      See you in 80 years!!!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
      • Ancient Brit

        Apparently there is one thing that can exceed the speed of light, and that's the fabric of spacetime. There are proposals for creating forms of travel by pushing artifically-created envelopes of spacetime surrounding a craft through spacetime itself, but there are as many detractors as there are proponents.

        Dark energy's expansive force is, it seems, itself pushing the fabric of spacetime apart at an accelerating rate, with the effect that the leading edge of the expanding universe will at some point exceed the speed of light, but still, nothing within that fabric will be capable of exceeding the speed of light. Interesting, no?

        March 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • twistypurple@aol.com

      also the flaw of the scientific method, as one simply cannot confirm everything by experimentation with 100% accuracy, free of all prejudice

      March 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
      • Ancient Brit

        It's not a flaw, it's a feature, and it's described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (according to me).

        If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is universal then it must logically apply to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself, which means there's a degree of uncertainty as to whether we can be certain about our uncertainty. That being the case, it might be possible to be certain about some things but not others, although I'm not certain of that (but I am certain that I'm not certain, which negates the uncertainty. QED).

        March 16, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
  69. Dufflerpud

    Hey, even the Sasso guys didn't believe their own results.

    They did what responsible scientists do – they put them up for peer review.

    I have NO problem with their actions, nor am I surprised that the absolute speed is apparently still absolute.

    When are you are dealing with the hairy edges of science, you have to expect mistakes. It's what you DO about the mistakes that counts here. For examples of what NOT to do, see Pons Fleishmann cold fusion "breakthrough."

    March 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Bill

      When we stop questioning what is possible, then truly mankind is lost. if you believe in God fine, if not that is fine also. The important thing is that we all keep open minds and still ask the question "WHY"!

      March 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
      • Ancient Brit

        I suspect you meant "when we stop questioning what is IMpossible", because scientists continually question what is possible; it's what is considered impossible that doesn't get much questioning.

        March 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
  70. ENetArch

    Tachyons, while only theoretical in nature, exist as a hypothosis. The problem with Tachyons, are that they can travel faster, and if so, how and why? As WikiPedia stated, these particles could contain almost no energy, and a HUGE amount of matter, and no matter how much energy you put into a Tachyon, it would never go slower than the speed of light.

    Now the piece that made me think was, how much matter could you put into a Tachyon? Could you push everything from a universe in there?

    Tachyons will remain a hypothysis as long as scientists can't determine how to interact with them. Once they've achieved that, then the hypthosys will become a theory. And if enough evidence confirms that we can manipulate Tachyons, then it will become a law.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      The math that we have indicates that faster than light particles are possible...doesn't mean that they exist, or that the math won't be refined in the future.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
      • Chris

        I'ts mathermatics to all who have a grasp of the language , what is math, something you find in your wardrobe eating your best clothes?

        March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • bob

      As far as I know, tachyons have been a theoretical particle for some time. The thing is, that even if they do exist, they travel backward in time. In effect, it seems that they might as well not exist for us unless we are traveling backward in time also. At that point, their speed would be something different altogether as would many things. Physics would be unfathomable, I think. That is my understanding.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
  71. cpc65

    So when do I get my own transporter so I don't have to drive to and from work every day?

    March 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
  72. Michael

    Way to incorrectly state the speed of light. its 300,000 METERS per second. Not kilometers

    March 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • elandau

      Actually it is correct as stated: 300,000 km/sec. Thanks for reading!

      Elizabeth Landau,
      CNN

      March 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
      • Mark

        If you're really from CNN, that was the best response on a CNN board ever, in the history of CNN talking boards. Well done.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • cpc65

      Per Wikipedia ~ The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time. In imperial units this speed is approximately 186,282 miles per second.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • PABLO

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. It 300,000,000 meters per second or 300,000 kilometers per second.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • Michael

        Oops. You are correct sir

        March 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Brian

      I'd suggest you check your facts. CNN got it right.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • Michael

        I retract my previous statement. I've had it wrong in my head for years haha

        March 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • alex

      No, it is 300,000 km/s, which is 300,000,000 m/s, or 3×10^8 m/s

      March 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Ben

      umm no they had it right. If you are going to correct someone at least make sure you are right.

      The speed of light = 300,000,000 Meters/Second which when converted to Kilometers= 300,000 km/sec. Which happens to be what was reported....

      March 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
      • Michael

        Yes. I am wrong. I have been corrected several times already and feel like a dunce. No need to further humiliate me

        March 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • MJD

      Nope: 300,000 km/s = 300,000,000 m/s = 3 x 10^8 m/s = speed of light.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • AJ

      Actually, yes it is kilometers. Light is fast, dude.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Vampiro

      Just look it up before you say something that foolish. The article's correct.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • PABLO

      Michael, hope you make it out of the third grade this year.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Michael

        It happens Pablo. I've had it wrong in my head for years and I am happy to finally be corrected. Live and learn. No need to be disparaging about it

        March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
      • Harsh Reality

        I agree. If he learned something, then it is a step forward. Would you call a child stupid for not knowing something?? Or rub it in that they once didn't know it??

        March 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
      • Scott

        If Michael is to gracious to say it, I will. Pablo you're an A**hole

        March 16, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Michael

      The speed of light is (approximately) 3 x 10^8 m/s, or 300,000,000 m/s. This is equivalent to 300,000 kilometers/s since there are 1000m in 1 kilometer. Thus, the article is correct as stated.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Rangergus

        The speed of light is the speed women flee from you geeks.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Sparky

      Way to incorrectly correct the article; it's 299,792,458 m/s, which is about 300,000 Km/s. Pay attention!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Rich S

      Last time I checked, c =299,792,458 m/s. If you don't believe it, take the imperial 186,000 miles/second and multiply by 1.62 to give you km/s.

      three important extra zeroes!🙂

      March 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • svann

      Geez cut the guy a break. He obviously made the mistake because c is normally represented in metres not km. Not the end of the world.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • adopted USA

      Did you actually read the article?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • Chuck

      Poor Michael. Karma wasted no time circling around on him.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Too Funny

      Where is Einstein when you need him.. LOL

      March 16, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • CAL USA

      So Michael, you think light travels at 300,000 meters per second, which would be 300 kilometers per second, which would be 186 miles per second, which would be 669,600 miles per hour. In other words, we will in a hundred years or so have space vehicles that can outrun their headlights. Who knew we were that close....

      March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  73. Michael Begala

    I think in theory, I know how we could travel at the speed of light. Universal laws define gravity between masses. But what if you could "Cloak" mass and thus appear to its surroundings to have none. Curve the shape and you could disconnect from the earth and go forward and reverse. Surround in a sphere and to the earth you would have no mass. So we do not want to change the laws of natural physics, just fool them. Working on the solution now.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • PABLO

      Gee, you could be a writer for the Big Band Theory (on TV).

      March 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
  74. coy4one

    What's really amazing is that Einstein did all this and he suffered from being dyslexic.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Cithigibvee

      That's why his original calculations were for the light of speed.

      March 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  75. Dr Do Do

    It's all theory guys! It will be many years before any of this is proven. And the way we are being dumbed down Europe and Asia will be the ones that make the breakthroughs. The US, Russia and China will be to busy trying to keep their people under control to make any meaningful discoveries. Ancient civilizations were probably further along in understanding things in the universe than we are today because they were able to isolate themselves from religious fanatics and postulate theories without all of the jack a$$es running around telling them they were wrong or they were going to he11 for believing in certain theories. We need to get back on track and do some real exploring!

    March 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • ChiliManiac

      Not to burst your bubble but you do know what a Theory is correct?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • Harsh Reality

        Yup. An operating assumption based on a preponderance of evidence.

        March 17, 2012 at 2:16 am |
    • UhYeaOk

      How funny, you blame the "religous fanatics" from the past. Actually many of the scientist of the past were religous, back to school for you. But, I am guessing your a democrat and you folks do like to rewrite history, or in many cases just ignore it.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • turp Griswald

        Was a time when one pretty much had to be religious (or at least claim to be) or risk the wrath of religious leaders. Also, being religious doesn't mean being dogmatically, literally religious.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Lee Ann

      Ditto!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
  76. coy4one

    I blame Romney!

    March 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      Romney still thinks Galileo and Copernicus were WAY out of line.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
      • rea

        HA!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • CNNuthin

        Yeah but both of them make Santorum throw up when he hears about them.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  77. Peter

    IMO, matter/energy under the control of nature may not be able to travel faster than the speed of light. But, we may one day be able to build a device that disconnects itself from its current location in space and reconnects itself someplace else in the Universe, aka Warp Speed ... I'll work on it this weekend. I just need enough beer! Woohooo

    March 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Peter

      ... I just finished my first beer and I think I got it. I just realize that we indeed can travel through time. If not, how do we get to tomorrow in the first place. Duuuuh!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
      • Peter

        ... S@#$t, this beer is good. I just got another insight. IMO, I think when we walk, we're doing a form of Warp speed. That is, to travel through 3 dimensional space, we need to have the quantum particles in our bodies disconnect themselves from their current spacial location and reconnect themselves to the next position in 3D space.

        So then, all we need is change the distance between our disconnecting and connecting points in space and we are traveling faster than the speed of light.

        More beer please!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • JayEm

        Did you ever see one of them signs that say "free beer tomorrow" ? Did you ever manage to get one of them free beer? Right, you never get to tomorrow because tomorrow becomes today, duhh!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Peter

      Three dimensions of space and one of time ... Hummm, so I guess 5 dimensional space is what we need to get to in order to control the lower 4. So if I screw with two electromagnetic waves passing each other at right angles, such that their electric vector cancels out, we're then left just with the magnetic vector from each wave interacting ... Since gravity is a weak force, such magnetic field when sent through a rotating superconducting rotating liquid may provide a force against gravity ... now, where to get some superconducting fluid?. The local liquor store doesn't carry it. I just checked. I got my 2 bottles of wine and 12 pack for the weekend! Wooohooo

      March 16, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
  78. WIlly

    Our Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      I saw it for real in "Back to the Future", the bad news is that it gives you Parkinson's!!!!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
      • steve

        LOL... good one, Claudie...

        March 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • Munzter

        LOL!!!!!

        March 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • She's got a nice bum

      *sigh*
      I miss enterprise.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  79. LMNOP

    With a 'stache like that, how could he have been wrong?

    March 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  80. Claude Gothic

    Einstein did not say that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, only that nothing could pass through the speed of light...that would take an infinite amount of energy. Particles that went faster than the speed of light would have to stay above that speed at all times, would have less energy the faster they went, and would also travel "backwards" in time compared to us. Nobody knows if anything like that exists, but it's theoretically possible.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Raxtich

      You are correct, sir!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
  81. john

    e=mc2.. its not just a good idea, its the law.. but seriously, isnt the speed ofl ight slowing down? interesting

    March 16, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • LMNOP

      It's not slowing down, it's just getting lazy.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Joe

      If light was a kid that needed to clean its room or brush it's teeth it would surely slow down.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  82. Joe

    Anyone know why its C squared and not just E=MC?

    March 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      You could just define "C" to be the square of the speed of light and then you'd like the equation better.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • yourmother

      I won't do the derivation here, but E has to be in units of energy (N*m or kg*m^2*s^-2). Mass is in units of kg and c is in units of m/s, so from a units perspective E = mc would never work. Not never as in "I'm saying it won't work," but it would contradict the way Energy is defined.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  83. John

    When supernova S1987A was discovered in the LMC, scientists went back and checked and found a neutrino burst that arrived approximately 3 hours before visible light. Neutrinos are released when the core collapses, before the shock wave and light release.

    Here's my question on that.... Sanduleak -69° 202 (the progenitor star) is estimated to have been about 168,000 light years away when it blew. Even if the neutrinos were traveling at around 99% the speed of light, how could they have remained ahead of the light burst? Yes, they were released before the light, but they shouldn't be released THAT far ahead to remain 3 hours ahead of the light emissions even after 168,000 years. this suggests they are moving either at or INCREDIBLY CLOSE TO the speed of light. Which seems to fit the measurements previously recorded by CERN.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • Paul Lester

      Good try but if I recall, the reaction that emits the neutrinos occurs at the star's interior. The neutrinos travel straight through all the other Quark and Leptonic matter, while the photons are absorbed and emitted by the matter slowing their emission.
      I have my own theory on why neutrinos appear to be super-luminal but haven't had time to work out the math. As a massive particle approaches the speed light its observed physical dimensions change (as is well known). In addition the uncertainity principle may (or may not) force the neutrino to not have a measurable location in the direction it is moving. In this manner if the cross section of the extended neutrino is big enough on the "nose" of the particle, it may interact with the target before the center of mass of the neutrino reaches the target. But in this case some neutrinos would appear to travel faster than light but not all neutrinos. The closer to C the neutrino travels the more pronounced this affect will be. And with this experiment in the article, we could then infer perhaps the size or mass of the neutrino based on how much faster than light the fastest neutrinos arrive. But I haven't fully vetted this idea as my job keeps me too busy.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
    • snell's law

      the speed of light is not actually constant – it changes depending on what medium it travels through. this gives rise to refraction. this is because an electromagnetic wave can interact with matter, like charged electrons around an atom. on the other hand, neutrinos do not interact with matter (practically speaking – the chances of interaction are very very small). thus, it is possible that even if BOTH the neutrinos and light were produced at the same instant at the core of the supernova, the stellar atmosphere could have slowed-down the light wave enough to give the neutrinos a 3+ hour head-start. Also, considering this supernova happened approx. 170,000 light years away, even if neutrons only traveled at 0.0001% faster than light, the discrepancy in time should be on the order of weeks to months, not hours.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  84. Joe

    Once they smashed about 100 pounds of Uranium 235 together and then imploded a few pounds of Plutonium 239 and two cities disappeared. That was a pretty graphic confirmation that E does in fact equal Mass times the Constant speed of light, squared.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Claude Gothic

      That only released a tiny fraction of they energy present in that matter...the H bomb is far more efficient (fusion vs. fission), which is why yields of over 20 Megatons have been achieved.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • stan

      was it? of was it a demonstration that mass and energy are interchangeable at some unknown ratio.

      last i checked the trinity gadget wasnt placed inside a huge calrimeter, and they didnt go back afterwards and account for all the plutonium down to the last microgram.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  85. Liqmaticus

    "Rush, how long until we jump to FTL?"

    March 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  86. Frank

    Those quantumly entangled particles get around faster than the speed of light and nobody has explained that yet.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Faxon

      Gravity also appears to interact instantaneously. However, on the one hand the particles are not physically moving, and on the other, gravity distorts space. So the law seems to be unbroken as of yet.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
      • Munzter

        Gravity travels at the speed of light. If the sun were to magically disappear, the earth would continue in its orbit for the amount of time it takes light to reach the earth, about 8 minutes, and then go off at a tangent

        March 16, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • ?!?!?

      quantum entanglement does not violate the speed as light, as nothing – not even information – is traveling faster than the speed of light. quantum entanglement works something like this – – say I have long pants on, and I tell you that every day I wear one red sock and one green sock, but I randomize from day-to-day what feet they are on. so, on some days the red sock is on my right foot, and sometimes on my left. If you lift up my right pant leg to see a red sock, you INSTANTLY know then the color of my left sock is green – the information about my left sock took absolutely no time to travel through space in order for you to know it. where before we had a 50/50 probability, the act of observing collapsed BOTH wavefunctions instantly, no matter how far apart they are. however, because quantum processes like this are totally random, it is impossible to transmit or receive information in this fashion using entanglement. at least not yet...

      March 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  87. Jeremy

    The problem with the "hard" sciences these days is they seem to stamp out all creativity and potential to dream big. I know you can't have your head in the clouds as a physicist or astronomer etc but the daring explorers of the 20th century would look at these humorless "if it's not in the books we aren't going to try it" scientists of today and say "where's your spirit of adventure?"

    March 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Mark from Canada

      Creative ingenuity exists in abductive inference of explanatory hypotheses and this is going on every second of every day. The problem is not with science, but with ignorance that has become popularized by your politicians.

      THE FIRST RULE OF REASON: Do not block the way of inquiry (Charles Sanders Peirce, 1932)

      The only once blockinng the way of inquiry are your politicians and the GOP insanity that's going on in your country.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        One's not once – typo

        March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
      • sielingfan

        GOP is an easy target and all, but there's ignorance in spades to go around everywhere you look. By taking a side intellectually you only open yourself up to significant opinion bias, which is the worst kind of barrier to inquiry. Demonstrated: Let's do some more experiments to prove Intelligent Design might have happened; or, Let's fund some research to determine at which point "human life" begins in a fetus.

        Was your first reaction negative to either of those proposals? If not, kudos. But my guess is they produce the typical initial hostility that you might expect from a fundamentalist christian hearing about "new evolution research." It's ugly no matter where it is, so don't fall victim to yourself.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
      • UhYeaOk

        @Mark from Canada, you just had to blame the GOP didn't you? How left wing of you, stay in Canada and keep your stupid opinions there as well. Have a good day!

        March 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        I just had to blame the GOP – why yes? Who else is there to blame for all the fanfare of ignorance? It is the only political reality that I know that celebrates it, wants it, and uses it to suit its purpose. Ignorance has become the new fad, sad to say.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • WIlly

      "Our Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible." now that's now fun.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  88. hello

    who really cares!!

    March 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Randall "Texrat" Arnold

      Everyone with a brain and some curiosity.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Mark from Canada

      Obviously most American's don't. Sipping on McD's and spinning of your mouths about foreign events while delusional and ill informed about the facts of planetary affairs. Amazing that the US has capitalized on the resources of a nation stripped of its indignious rights to feed into a corporate nation that is completely unaware of itself, what it does, and the fundamentals of science. Vote Santorum, because I'm sure he doesn't care about science like the rest of you. The sooner the collapse comes, probably the better. Why drag this out – bring on the fundamentalists. Exceed the thresholds of this planet and bend the laws of nature to suit your wants while exporting wars, poverty, and failure onto the rest of the world. Meanwhile, hey look over there – is that the new Lorax movie! Wow! I love that stuff – because I love the environment. What were we talking about?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
      • matthew

        Hold up Mark. We aren't *all* like that.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
      • travislg

        Who died and made Canadians the smartest most intellectual people on the Earth eh?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • Ken

        Hmmmm....way to make an completely over-generalized statement on the political and social morals of the united states. grand stand much?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • max

        too much TV brother, we aren't all like that and sometimes silence, so they have to really guess what you really think is better than a person who rants on all the time and guessing isn't required my man.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
      • Chris

        You seem to know quite a lot about Americans if you're going to be throwing around terms like "most" when speaking argumentatively. While there are many, note how I'm not over-generalizing like you, Americans suffer from short attention spans, poor reading skills, and deep obsessions with pop-cultural fare, there are those who wouldn't fit that description.

        And it doesn't take a wise person to make the kinds of comments you just did, just an angry, self-important, quite possibly bitter internet blogger. If you have Americans – knock yourself out – and just keep posting the hate-fest, or become a student of mankind of avoid lumping people together to fit malcontent political agendas. Every country – every one – suffers the fool. If Canada actually had more than 1,000 people living there, you'd see it, too, eh?

        March 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • longtooth

        "Most Americans"? You lump a few hundred million human beings into one stereotype while you talk about science? That's like saying most Canadians drink bad beer while they admire their belly button lint. Only less accurate.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
      • Chris

        "if you hate Americans" – typo in that last paragraph

        There were a couple others, but this will suffice.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
      • IsThisAllThereIs

        I sympathize, Mark. It does seem like as a whole the US gets too involved (and we do). But there is another side to this as well. Some countries (Canada comes to mind), don't seem to care much at all about world events, and stays as far away from interference as blind ignorance allows. How would things look if we all stayed entirely out of the world politics scene? Those wars aren't entirely bad (or good), but change is opportunity, and we *are* an instrument of change in that sense. I'd prefer to not be a "warmonger", but there are times when *somebody* has to step up and do it. If only the U.S. didn't seem to think that was their primary responsibility (or only option, or preferred option, or...), there would be less to criticize about us – and where would that leave you? Besides out of things to say, apparently.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • Muud

        Mark, plesae hold off on the American bashing. It's very un-Canadian, isn't it? Hypocrite.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        Of course it was a generalization and things are no better in Canada, if not worse. However, I lump us into a collective in terms of the distortions that are fed by capitalist growth, technohype, private riches, and the urban niche that has distanced us and buffered us from the facts. If there is a law of growth that I can observe, it is that the distance between our perceptions and fact is widening at an accelerated rate relative to the growth of the economy.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        Typo's don't count in comment boards – they are a reflection of how much I care and how much of a legacy they leave. I'll leave the grammar and spell checking to places where it counts – in real publications. Here I just whiz out thoughts, because that's what everyone else is doing.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        It is amazing to note that we share over 99% of our genes with chimps! I wonder what percentage of genes Canadians share with Americans? Put things into perspective people. The different between Canadians and Americans is a fairy tale. We have Wall Mart, Target, and wear the same clothes. We have GW Bush, or at least his clone. Are we a different culture? Not by much – unless you watch American TV portraying us as some weird group saying "eh" with beavers, hockey, and other oddities. I do not play hockey and it is the American beaver eh. You guys go aboot your business and we'll politely thank you for arming and protecting us with your mighty military. This kind of cultural narrative weaves its web of myth and the scary part is that this mythology is what gets your leaders elected.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        BTW – my dad is American, and I lived in New York and California for a number of years. So genetically I must be American and culturally I'm sure some of your filthy traits have rubbed into my thoughts.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
      • Steve from Canada

        We have our fair share of fools in Canada as well........as you can see.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
      • Mark from Canada

        Hey Steve, how's it going eh? Is that Steve Harper? Talking of fools.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Liqmaticus

      Well, if no one cared you would not be typing on that computer keyboard.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • matthew

      Hello?
      Really?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • PABLO

      What is HELLO doing on a technical blog. Obviously doesn't understand the issues, importance and consequences of scientific experimentation. Go read the comics.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
      • max

        maybe the simplest word to use sums up the ideas being described and the validity of the question being posed.
        Of course "hello mcfly" would be a better term to sum up the argument posed in the article. Now does that help you to equate???

        March 16, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  89. JCthatsme

    How can they get an accurate measurement, the speed of light is set in a vaccuum yet this wrong( right) measurement passes through mountains, confused

    March 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • Bart

      They are measuring nuetrinos which are known to travel through matter, including mountains, at the speed of light with practically no interaction with the matter (mountains).

      March 16, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • dc

      I'm sure it's pretty simple.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • PABLO

      Bart is right. Neutrinos do not interact with matter or electromagnetic fields as does light. Read a book.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  90. Buzz

    Einstein was an alien sent here to push along our civilization.

    March 16, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  91. blaqb0x

    We need to teach the "Faster than Light Controversy" in high schools.

    March 16, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Joe

      lol

      March 16, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  92. Terence Hale

    I Care to Disagree.

    March 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • PABLO

      With what? Are you just a disagreeable person?

      March 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  93. UFB

    Not short-sighted, just traditionally conservative. While Planck's quantum mechanics were "incompatible" with classical Newtonian physics, it didn't invalidate it. Neither did Einstein's Theory of Relativity overturn Planck or Newton. They are each functionally compatible in some domains, not in others. Each new theory extends our knowledge into new domains. Until there is proof, yes, Einstein is the end all and be all, so far; but don't presume we've reached the limits of knowledge .

    March 16, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • Kenneth A. Rebro

      I like your reply. We don't know what we don't know

      March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Matt

      Uhh... Newtonian physics has, in fact, been completely superseded by modern relativity and quantum physics. In every single case, quantum theory provides a better approximation of what really happens than Newtonian theory does. To be fair, Newtonian physics is still widely used because its approximations are very often "good enough," but the fact is it's a defunct field.

      March 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
  94. Carlito

    Wooow. Has anyone here actually studied science past grade school level?
    No, Alex. Science is not "shorsighted" nor does it say that "If you haven't seen it, then it doesn't exist." In fact, all those things you mentioned are known to exist BECAUSE OF science. We don't have to see things to be able to measure them, you see. Albert E didn't just pull out of his ass that "well, since I haven't seen anything move faster than light, light must be the fastest thing there is!" In fact, you cannot even "see" the speed of light, since only massless particles (such as photons) can reach it, and only in a vacuum. Decades of studies, scientific experiments, and mathematical formulations went into drawing said conclusion... which over a century of scientific advancement has been unable to refute, but instead keeps confirming.
    You probably also think science is "shortsighted" in stubbornly not accepting that leprechauns, ghosts, yahweh, allah, apollo, and the flying spaghetti monster exist... merely on the silly basis of not having any of that "evidence" nonsense, huh?

    March 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Joe

      Science is a joke. But a good pointless hobby. :0

      March 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
      • CS

        Yes, let's just put our faith in our political leaders, like insantorum, or Mulah Omar.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
      • Thomas

        Science a joke? You're trolling, right? Says the guy who is just communicated via an communication network of electrons using a computer that probably has more computing power than all the computers in the world in just 50 yrs. ago.

        Jokes on you, bud. Jokes on you. Or more accuratly – YOU ARE THE JOKE

        March 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  95. Alex Povolotski

    It's funny how shortsighted the science is. If you haven't seen it, then it doesn't exist, they say. Centuries ago, people didn't know other planets existed, other galaxies, black holes, the dark matter, etc. Even gravity and Earth being an ellipsoid was in question because people didn't see it that way... But it doesn't mean those things didn't exist...

    March 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • David

      They are not saying its not possible because they haven't seen it. The impossiblity of faster than light travel is a consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity which lies at the heart of modern physics, and which has passed every test ever made of it. If it were discovered that something could travel faster, then the very foundations of modern physics would have to be rethought. Note, they didn't discount the possibility. Its just that it would be a very big deal, and thus extensive scrutiny is needed.

      March 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
      • Paul Lester

        FTL is I believe not a firm law, as hinted by the following: IIn graduate physics class we were taught how some measurables do travel faster than light, but there is no particle mediating these. When you have two entangled quantum states, separated by a distance, he said you could untangle one in one area and it would determine the state of the other and the information would appear to travel faster than light. I took it for granted that it was true but haven't investigated the experiments on this. Anyone know if its finalized yet? For non-physics buffs, here's the WIKI article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

        March 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Sam

      Actually science doesn't follow that rule. It is more of a 'if there is no evidence it exists then you can't seriously consider it a factor until evidence of its existence is found'.

      Certainly different than a sight based rule.

      March 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • Joe

      Science is very short sided. It's interesting and fun but it's very narrow and biased even though it doesn't have to be. Einstein was one of the last true scientists. Physics hasn't really taught us anything new in the past 30 years at least. Science nerds are going to hate me but they are shot sided as well.🙂

      March 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
      • Randall "Texrat" Arnold

        Wow. Just wow.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
      • dc

        Randall, I concur. And I am multi-sided but apparently at least one of them is short.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
      • PABLO

        Don't even know what short sided is? Short sighted maybe? Another example of someone commenting that doesn't know their a** from a hole in the ground.

        March 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • blessedgeek

        You are very side shorted. Don't trust people who cannot differentiate a pineapple from a pinnacle. Especially the side shorted ones.

        March 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
      • GMcG

        I am short sided. My right leg is to inches shorter than the left. I lean over.

        March 16, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • Randall "Texrat" Arnold

      It's funny how shortsighted some commenters are.

      March 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • Blind as a gd bat

      Absolutely, all us scientists and engineers are super short sighted. I for one, have to wear both glasses and contacts!

      March 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
      • Blind as a gd bat

        From the wikipedia on Myopia (short sightedness):
        "A number of studies have shown the incidence of myopia increases with level of education,[62][55] and many studies[72] have shown a correlation between myopia and a higher intelligence quotient (IQ)."

        March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  96. DARKMATTER

    who say wrong ? THE ALLIED OF MAYAN !! THAT TYPE OF ALIEN ARE EASY TO DROP

    March 16, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • John C.

      Please stick to reading your Goosebumps books.

      March 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  97. Jennifer

    Well written for a science piece

    March 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  98. joe

    CNN's war mongering can travel faster than light any day of the week.

    March 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  99. Stinky

    The speed of light is NOT the speed limit of the universe.

    I ripped a real paint-peeling fart in an elevator once, and the other passengers exceeded that theoretical speed limit as soon as the doors opened.

    March 16, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • José

      C'mon ja ja ja... everybody knows that, but you proved it ja ja ja...

      March 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
      • Ashley

        Hey quick thought.... But you mean HAHAHA.... The "j" in english is closer to a "g" in spanish not an "H"

        March 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
      • elandau

        @Ashley It is common to write "jaja" instead of "haha" among Spanish speakers.

        Thanks for reading!
        Elizabeth Landau, CNN

        March 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • Claude Gothic

        I think he's German and agreeing with you!
        ;^)

        March 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
      • Ja Ja - Medina

        Hi, I speak Spanish, and we say "Ja Ja" because the "J" in Spanish sounds like the "H" in English, and the "H" in Spanish is mute, strange, I know ja ja.

        March 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer