Comments on: CNN Physics Fail http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/ Fail and Epic Fail Pictures and Videos in one blog. For all those precious fail moments, whip out your camera and see your epic fail picture and videos here. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:23:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: AssBlocker http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1349966 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:46:58 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1349966 humm for me a black hole is an reverse sphere, its like a 3 dimension hole nomatter the angle u see u will se a hole. now why the black hole does all the sucky sucky i dunno.

hows that for a non egg-head comment?

]]> By: w00b http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1349960 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:32:48 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1349960 O.o i only say time shift

]]> By: Wowtroll http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1295443 Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:21:01 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1295443 Tachyons travel faster than the speed of light….

]]> By: Xavier Terri http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1217667 Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:47:56 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1217667 Any transformation between two observers is a space-time dialogue between two entities A and B about a third entity C. In the ‘Galileo Transformation’, the third entity C is understood, does not appear in the notation. But the ‘Lorentz Transformation’ completely ignores the entity C, and this is why the twin paradox.
I would like to introduce some new transformations that preserve the local velocity of light. Also resolve the twin paradox.
Relational Transformation: http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0022
More Information: http://21physics.blogspot.com/p/new-lorentz-transformation.html

]]> By: Albert http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1152341 Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:17:33 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1152341 You change names, but your picture not changing, genius!

]]> By: Albert http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1152337 Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:12:17 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1152337 Why? It’s free country!

]]> By: no1 http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1152324 Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:03:20 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1152324 DAAAAAAMN CNN FAAAAAAIL hehehehehehe, 18 times the speed of light… we’d make it anywhere in the universe,the speed of light is the highest speed in the universe..no one can go beyond it…but CNN said they went 18 times that speed…im amazed hehehee

]]> By: Min http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1058314 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:48:16 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1058314 I tried to understand, but I couldn’t :(
Don’t, my friend, don’t. Unless you want to kill your braincells.

]]> By: Stinkbomb http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1058300 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:34:42 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1058300 fail. its MACH, not mark…

physics is PHUN! (and its not MY pun)

]]> By: Min http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1058295 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:21:56 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1058295 Language is important. Very much so. What kind of person have PhD and still use text talk? I feel bad for the professor, having a massive headache trying to comprehend what in the world they mean.
You’re too serious, man. Loosen up, he still fails for telling others to go back to school when he failed English.

]]> By: Jefferson Bicycle http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1058286 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:13:09 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1058286 CNN doubts Einstein.

]]> By: Min http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1058279 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:04:17 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1058279 Since I don’t think the word “Arogant” is on any English dictionary, I suppose the word you’re looking for is “Arrogant”.
Fail language.

]]> By: Me http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1035755 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:41:06 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1035755 Damn, you’re stupid.
You can’t go faster than the speed of light >>

]]> By: xana98 http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1007546 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:51:21 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1007546 they would expireance time dialation as they accelarate.
and they nearly reach mark 18 (18xspeed of sound)
p.s. yay science.

]]> By: anoyed blond geek http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-1007505 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:36:03 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-1007505 you would still expereiriance massive time dailations

]]> By: The Fly http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-926331 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:15:14 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-926331 Personally, I think 18x speed of light is just excessive, and a good waste of gasoline. Nine x speed of light is plenty fast enough for me!

]]> By: Malake256 http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-920914 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:11:29 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-920914 Haha, this was so hilarious :D . They’re freaking jesus

]]> By: Chrisss16 http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-917933 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:37:56 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-917933 This was not photoshopped.

The measurement (18C) is correct as far as was known at the time.

The weird thing is nearly nobody mentioned the correct answer. This is basic quantum mechanics (I won’t give you the math, it’s a pain, but I’ll explain how this works):

The particles moved very, very fast (understatement.) This was measured (back then) at 18 times the speed of light. The current measurement is that it is infinitely fast.

Essentially, the particles, thanks to quantum mechanics, moved, to all intents and purposes, backward in time, arriving at the designated place at the same time it left, i.e. infinitely fast to a viewer that does not move in time.

They did not travel faster than light (since, as Einstein wisely gave evidence for, it is impossible), and no, they did not break any proven natural laws by moving backwards in time.

Quantum mechanics has not been disproven.

Quantum mechanics has not been proven, either – many scientists are still against it.

]]> By: Lotty http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-850720 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:41:47 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-850720 I don’t get it?

]]> By: Anti-Anonymous http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-842087 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:13:57 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-842087 Actually, anything accelerating from less than c, to c, gains infinite mass. And yes, that statistical, logical impossibility is (ONE OF THE REASONS) why we can’t figure out FTL travel.

]]> By: Kendra http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-822360 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:26:59 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-822360 Never have so many nerds been so sure they were so right, and yet so many so wrong.

]]> By: Anonymous http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-806911 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:07:27 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-806911 TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!

]]> By: GOOGOORARA http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-766259 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:41:22 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-766259 I love Muffins!

]]> By: BLEEDER http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-760046 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:24:32 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-760046 LOL!!! 18 Times speed of FAIL

]]> By: Albert E Stein http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-754436 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:11:51 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-754436 Going at the speed of light would cause the light particles in the atmosphere to slowly transform into carbon atoms. So that means you could become a cloud of carbon and probably mutate cause carbon is radioactive.

]]> By: TYFL http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-695567 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:27:30 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-695567 LUDICROUS SPEED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they’ve gone plaid.

]]> By: Justin http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-625790 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:10:10 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-625790 This is why I love the internet, I was more amused reading the comments than I was observing the original picture!
To all those people out there who know more physics than me (i.e., all of you): I believe I read somewhere that whilst you cannot attain the speed of light by accelerating to it, it is possible to create something that already has FTL momentum, therefore bypassing the infinite energy requirement?

]]> By: Johnny http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-623099 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:17:23 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-623099 Thank you! Its about time someone desided to tell them about it.
The thing many people dont realize is that the speed of light is relative. They cannot travel 18 times the speed of light because objects traveling slower than the speed of light will never be albe to go faster than the speed of light, and objects moving faster than the speed of light will never be able to travel slower than the speed of light.
But if they were to travel close to the speed of light, from our point of view absolutely nothing would happen. Once they aproached the speed of light they would apear to us as completely frozen in time. They wouldnt crash untill trillions of years into the future.

This is due to the fact that when an object aproaches the speed of light, light itself must always be able to pass them at the full speed of light in any which direction. This is relativity, if you look at the equation
(Detlta t)’ = (Delta t)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
v cannot ever = c
but as v aproaches c the change in time gets closer and closer to infinity. This meaning that time would go by faster and faster as they aproached the speed of light. So what seems to them to be 1 minute off falling to the ground, is millions of years to us. Meaning millions of years would go by on earth before they actually crashed into the ground.

From our point of view. They would sit there in that spot forever. This is because we cannot watch them for million years to see them move.

So, no black holes, no going back in time, no destruction of the universe, just 7 people forever stuck in the sky. (for a million years or so.)

Cheers!

]]> By:   http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-617972 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:14:19 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-617972 Would still take 2.64 months to travel to the nearest star

]]> By: Deep http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-616024 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:24:54 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-616024 Hahaha they most likely meant the “Speed of Flight” xD

]]> By: Meh... http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-611996 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:32:50 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611996 OMFG it was a joke. CTFD arg

]]> By: Meh... http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-611994 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:27:29 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611994 Science meets math fail

]]> By: Meh... http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-611989 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:22:31 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611989 Extra o fail

]]> By: Meh... http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-611987 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:18:35 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611987 Dude, seriously, you’re doing an overthought, unorthodox overachievement fail.

]]> By: Batman http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-593403 Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:38 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-593403 I like chocolate milk!!!

]]> By: Harpuia http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-577318 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:12:02 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-577318 Didn’t think of Colony Ships, did ya?

]]> By: joe http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-573974 Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:27:06 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573974 i agree except for your conclusion. i would say, since YOUR MASS NEVER CHANGES, it is impossible to have infinite mass, therefor making FTL travel impossible

]]> By: joe http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-573969 Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:23:21 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573969 actually, in in space going the speed of light isn’t as fast as you think. for example, the nearest star is several LIGHT YEARS away. even at the speed of light, it would still be too slow to explore anything beyond our solar system

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-565261 Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:31:40 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565261 Not true on your Energy comment. You arfe referring to E = mc^2, which is the mass energy equvalence. You should be referring to E = (gamma) mv^2, which DOES show it requiring an infinite amount of energy (gamma = 1 / sqrt ( 1 – v^2 / c^2) , which one can see goes to 1 / 0 as v -> c. This would make the whole equation go to infinity.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-565260 Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:25:51 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565260 *claps*

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-557874 Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:26:59 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-557874 gamma = 1 / sqrt (1 – v^2 / c^2), sorry about mistake.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556955 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:08:19 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556955 No it doesn’t. Gamma changes.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556954 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:07:34 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556954 Wow, this isn’t a troll, is it.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556953 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:05:37 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556953 NO. GDI NO. In your state, nothing would have changed. NO INFINITE MASS OR DENSITY. If by your observations (observations taken by you, the person going nearly the speed of light) nothing has changed, how could you implode? Just because you are going fast doesn’t mean you can apparently be normal (your own reference frame) while someone else ‘sees’ you become a black hole (in their reference frame).
Logic fail.
Gamma is not a “mass multiplier,” it is in formulas that do not involve mass (Lorentz’ Transformations). GDI NO BLACKHOLES. NOT HOW IT WORKS. TY.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556949 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:57:13 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556949 So if a guy who spoke english as a second language but had a PHD in Physics told you something about physics you’d say: Learn ENGLISH noob, WTF, moron.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556947 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:55:08 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556947 At this point, just gonna say NO.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556945 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:53:43 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556945 NO. GDI. NO. Don’t make assumptions; do the math. Your view is not supported. See intro to relativity and stop drowning the world in your ignorance.

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556943 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:51:46 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556943 try tp plug v = 18c into lorentz transformation. FAIL. 1 – sqrt(-#) = complex time FUN

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556942 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:50:12 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556942 E=mass was supposed to be in quotes, belittling your intelligence.
arg is for Arogant, apparently

]]> By: arg guy http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-556941 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:48:57 +0000 http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556941 no black holes. Read my other posts, ARG

]]>