Quote:

Photons are radiation, light is included in that.  If you read about quantum behaviour and what Einstein wrote about you will understand what i say better. I would also reccomend you read about the photoelectric affect you will understand why photons are out in space and why they produce the variety of frequencies they do.  If you think of a photon as a packet of energy you will realise that it has a frequency because f=E/h frequency=energy/plank's constant, this applies for photons.  Also the famous E=mcc (i would put squared but there is not a function that allows me to but cc will do)  Energy=mass*speed of light*speed of light. Thinking of light as a wave means it E=mcc cannot apply as a wave has no mass.  Thinking of it as a particle, helps but this means they do not relate, i think of it as a particle, because particles have mass and so do we(as we are made up of particles).  Going faster than the speed of light requires a greater than infinite mass.  This is why a greater than infinite mass is not possible because infinite+1=infinite.  

I do know of one sure way of going faster than light and that is the cherekov effect.  Light travelling in a vacuum can be expected to travel at 3x10 to the 8 meters per second. In a dense medium such as water or glass, light slows down to c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium (1.0003 for air, 1.4 for water).  It is possible for particles to travel through air or water at faster than the speed of light in the medium.  Cherenkov radiation is produced as an effect.  Cherenkov radiation is the equilivent to a sonic boom, light travelling through water could be forced to go faster and it will emit lots of blue photons and you will be able to this as a faint blue glow.

Data is just on or off that is how computers work, binary is an example of using on or off.

I am not sure how they managed to get data to go faster than the speed of light but they did. ???

My main (and only) point was with seeing light.  If you had a, say... F-18 at the speed of light and your navigator shined a light behind, could you see it?  To answer this question, I would most trust facts from the speed of sound.  When Chuck Yeager was bopping around and passed Mach 1, could he hear his engine behind him?

Hyvry,

I think we best leave things as they are. We don't seem to be on the same wavelength (pun intended ).

I have read (many times) Einstein's theory of Relativity, those concerning parrallel Universes and a few of his more obscure ideas, and am, I feel, as familiar as a Layperson can be.   (Although, much of his work is a matter of interpretation and opinion - after all we are still dealing with thoeries)  

I see you have been reading also. You make some assertions regarding formulae, which don't seem to 'gel' with my understanding or interpretation of their purpose or meaning (this of course, doesn't mean that either of us is right or wrong, just a different view of something which is not proven anyway, i.e. a Theory, as I said).

Quote:

This assertion, to me, is an example. My interpretation of Einsteins theory of relativity and his 'famous' formula is that the 'C' is intended by Einstein to be a 'factor' in the equation which represents the 'speed of light' i.e. 186,000, (the miles per second aspect has no bearing as it is simply a 'factor' in the formula). The only element of the formula which requires mass is the 'M', which of course, is the weight (mass) of the substance from which the energy will be produced. The rest of the elements of the equation are, to me, simply factors that are applied to the 'M', which happen to equate to the amount of energy, the 'E', realised from that amount of a particular substance (obviously, in terms of a fission reaction, Uranium and Plutonium are generally the substances to which one would apply the 'M' in the equation.

Even though any substance can theoretically be used to produce a fission reaction, and hence, energy, the purest forms of these two of the heaviest (densest) elements, rather than those with less density are used because it would be 'virually' impossible to randomly 'split' an atom in any of the less dense elements. But they do still apply to the formula, if fission could be initiated, even in a dust particle.

But as I said, we'll agree to disagree, as I obviously don't have the same idea of definitons and interpretations as you do. However, it has been interesting.

Thanks  

P.S. Right off the track. I was in a Computer store a few weeks ago, to buy an 'optical mouse'. I walked up to a shop assistant and was going to ask him where they were.
It struck me that I couldn't make up my mind whether they (the plural) should be referred to as Mouses or Mice!!   ???

If you have a box of these things, what do you write on the outside:

24 x Microsoft Optical Mice (c/w scroll wheel)  OR

24 x Microsoft Optical Mouses (c/w scroll wheel)??

(or maybe it's 'meeses' a la Jinx the Cat)

(I ended up saying - "where would I find an Optical mouse??..................I'm a coward!! )

Who ever heard of  a time machine with headlights anyway? Not H.G., I reckon! 

Quote:


Tee-Hee...!
That has created a good Saturday morning laugh to clear out my lungs..... ...!
I'm with you all the way... 8)...!
Excellent...!

Cheers Doug... ...!
Paul.