<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CNN Physics Fail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/</link>
	<description>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.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:11:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kendra</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-822360</link>
		<dc:creator>Kendra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-822360</guid>
		<description>Never have so many nerds been so sure they were so right, and yet so many so wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never have so many nerds been so sure they were so right, and yet so many so wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-806911</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-806911</guid>
		<description>TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GOOGOORARA</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-766259</link>
		<dc:creator>GOOGOORARA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-766259</guid>
		<description>I love Muffins!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love Muffins!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BLEEDER</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-760046</link>
		<dc:creator>BLEEDER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-760046</guid>
		<description>LOL!!! 18 Times speed of FAIL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL!!! 18 Times speed of FAIL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Albert E Stein</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-754436</link>
		<dc:creator>Albert E Stein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-754436</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TYFL</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-695567</link>
		<dc:creator>TYFL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-695567</guid>
		<description>LUDICROUS SPEED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they&#039;ve gone plaid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LUDICROUS SPEED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />
they&#8217;ve gone plaid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-625790</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-625790</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is why I love the internet, I was more amused reading the comments than I was observing the original picture!<br />
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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-623099</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-623099</guid>
		<description>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)&#039; = (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!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you! Its about time someone desided to tell them about it.<br />
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.<br />
 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. </p>
<p>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<br />
(Detlta t)&#8217; = (Delta t)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)<br />
v cannot ever = c<br />
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By:  </title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-617972</link>
		<dc:creator> </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-617972</guid>
		<description>Would still take 2.64 months to travel to the nearest star</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would still take 2.64 months to travel to the nearest star</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deep</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-616024</link>
		<dc:creator>Deep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-616024</guid>
		<description>Hahaha they most likely meant the &quot;Speed of Flight&quot; xD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahaha they most likely meant the &#8220;Speed of Flight&#8221; xD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meh...</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611996</link>
		<dc:creator>Meh...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611996</guid>
		<description>OMFG it was a joke. CTFD arg</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMFG it was a joke. CTFD arg</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meh...</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611994</link>
		<dc:creator>Meh...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611994</guid>
		<description>Science meets math fail</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Science meets math fail</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meh...</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611989</link>
		<dc:creator>Meh...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611989</guid>
		<description>Extra o fail</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Extra o fail</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meh...</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611987</link>
		<dc:creator>Meh...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-611987</guid>
		<description>Dude, seriously, you&#039;re doing an overthought, unorthodox overachievement fail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dude, seriously, you&#8217;re doing an overthought, unorthodox overachievement fail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Batman</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-593403</link>
		<dc:creator>Batman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-593403</guid>
		<description>I like chocolate milk!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like chocolate milk!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harpuia</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-577318</link>
		<dc:creator>Harpuia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-577318</guid>
		<description>Didn&#039;t think of Colony Ships, did ya?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t think of Colony Ships, did ya?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573974</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573974</guid>
		<description>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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573969</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-573969</guid>
		<description>actually, in in space going the speed of light isn&#039;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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually, in in space going the speed of light isn&#8217;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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565261</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565261</guid>
		<description>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 -&gt; c. This would make the whole equation go to infinity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8211; v^2 / c^2) , which one can see goes to 1 / 0 as v -&gt; c. This would make the whole equation go to infinity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565260</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-565260</guid>
		<description>*claps*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*claps*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-557874</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-557874</guid>
		<description>gamma = 1 / sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2), sorry about mistake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>gamma = 1 / sqrt (1 &#8211; v^2 / c^2), sorry about mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556955</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556955</guid>
		<description>No it doesn&#039;t. Gamma changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No it doesn&#8217;t. Gamma changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556954</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556954</guid>
		<description>Wow, this isn&#039;t a troll, is it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, this isn&#8217;t a troll, is it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556953</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556953</guid>
		<description>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&#039;t mean you can apparently be normal (your own reference frame) while someone else &#039;sees&#039; you become a black hole (in their reference frame).
 Logic fail. 
Gamma is not a &quot;mass multiplier,&quot; it is in formulas that do not involve mass (Lorentz&#039; Transformations). GDI NO BLACKHOLES. NOT HOW IT WORKS. TY.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;t mean you can apparently be normal (your own reference frame) while someone else &#8217;sees&#8217; you become a black hole (in their reference frame).<br />
 Logic fail.<br />
Gamma is not a &#8220;mass multiplier,&#8221; it is in formulas that do not involve mass (Lorentz&#8217; Transformations). GDI NO BLACKHOLES. NOT HOW IT WORKS. TY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556949</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556949</guid>
		<description>So if a guy who spoke english as a second language but had a PHD in Physics told you something about physics you&#039;d say: Learn ENGLISH noob, WTF, moron.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if a guy who spoke english as a second language but had a PHD in Physics told you something about physics you&#8217;d say: Learn ENGLISH noob, WTF, moron.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556947</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556947</guid>
		<description>At this point, just gonna say NO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At this point, just gonna say NO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556945</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556945</guid>
		<description>NO. GDI. NO. Don&#039;t make assumptions; do the math. Your view is not supported. See intro to relativity and stop drowning the world in your ignorance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NO. GDI. NO. Don&#8217;t make assumptions; do the math. Your view is not supported. See intro to relativity and stop drowning the world in your ignorance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556943</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556943</guid>
		<description>try tp plug v = 18c into lorentz transformation. FAIL. 1 - sqrt(-#) = complex time FUN</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>try tp plug v = 18c into lorentz transformation. FAIL. 1 &#8211; sqrt(-#) = complex time FUN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556942</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556942</guid>
		<description>E=mass was supposed to be in quotes, belittling your intelligence.
arg is for Arogant, apparently</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E=mass was supposed to be in quotes, belittling your intelligence.<br />
arg is for Arogant, apparently</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556941</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556941</guid>
		<description>no black holes. Read my other posts, ARG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>no black holes. Read my other posts, ARG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556940</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556940</guid>
		<description>please see my other posts. E = mass. Mass does not change. Gamma changes. Gamma appears in formulas that have nothing to do with mass (Lorentz&#039; transformations) therefore it is not a &quot;mass multiplier&quot; just an effect. Mass does not change, do /not get more gravity due to speed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>please see my other posts. E = mass. Mass does not change. Gamma changes. Gamma appears in formulas that have nothing to do with mass (Lorentz&#8217; transformations) therefore it is not a &#8220;mass multiplier&#8221; just an effect. Mass does not change, do /not get more gravity due to speed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556938</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556938</guid>
		<description>e=mc^2 has NOTHING to do with your point. By that equation, it would seem like moving any mass at the speed of light requires an energy of E.
STFU. Stop drowning the world in your ignorance.
E = gamma mc^2 is important one here. As v -&gt; c, gamma -&gt; infinity (gamma = 1 / (1-v^2/c^2) , E -&gt; infinity. Mass does not go to infinity.
As for the infinite mass thing, it is due to the people misunderstanding gamma*m and treating gamma as the &quot;mass multiplier&quot; when it is more of an inertia increaser ie an energy requirement increaser.
End of story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>e=mc^2 has NOTHING to do with your point. By that equation, it would seem like moving any mass at the speed of light requires an energy of E.<br />
STFU. Stop drowning the world in your ignorance.<br />
E = gamma mc^2 is important one here. As v -&gt; c, gamma -&gt; infinity (gamma = 1 / (1-v^2/c^2) , E -&gt; infinity. Mass does not go to infinity.<br />
As for the infinite mass thing, it is due to the people misunderstanding gamma*m and treating gamma as the &#8220;mass multiplier&#8221; when it is more of an inertia increaser ie an energy requirement increaser.<br />
End of story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arg guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556932</link>
		<dc:creator>arg guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-556932</guid>
		<description>No, the poster before you is right; no infinite mass black holes. You DO NOT gain mass. It is a &#039;way of interpreting it&#039; but it is more like having more resistance to acceleration rather than having more mass. Poster before you was explaining that, when you for no reason say &quot;Also.... blah blah blah  (translation:I&#039;m an idiot).&quot;

Reading comprehension FAIL.
Me: Life FAIL. I&#039;m a third year physics student. WTF am I doing at 5:30 in the morning correcting failblog posters physics?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, the poster before you is right; no infinite mass black holes. You DO NOT gain mass. It is a &#8216;way of interpreting it&#8217; but it is more like having more resistance to acceleration rather than having more mass. Poster before you was explaining that, when you for no reason say &#8220;Also&#8230;. blah blah blah  (translation:I&#8217;m an idiot).&#8221;</p>
<p>Reading comprehension FAIL.<br />
Me: Life FAIL. I&#8217;m a third year physics student. WTF am I doing at 5:30 in the morning correcting failblog posters physics?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Some guy</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-550116</link>
		<dc:creator>Some guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:01:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-550116</guid>
		<description>Also, as you approached the speed of light, you&#039;d gain mass, so you&#039;d need more energy to accellerate... which would cause you to gain mass, so you&#039;d need more energy.

Basically for an object with mass, you need infinite energy to achieve lightspeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, as you approached the speed of light, you&#8217;d gain mass, so you&#8217;d need more energy to accellerate&#8230; which would cause you to gain mass, so you&#8217;d need more energy.</p>
<p>Basically for an object with mass, you need infinite energy to achieve lightspeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-537923</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-537923</guid>
		<description>well actually it would just be delayed, so what you were doing however the amount of speed your travailing. It&#039;d be like travailing at the speed of sound... but with light</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well actually it would just be delayed, so what you were doing however the amount of speed your travailing. It&#8217;d be like travailing at the speed of sound&#8230; but with light</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-524425</link>
		<dc:creator>jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-524425</guid>
		<description>no one really knows what would happen if the person would time travel or create a black hole</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>no one really knows what would happen if the person would time travel or create a black hole</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IanH</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-492454</link>
		<dc:creator>IanH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-492454</guid>
		<description>dang sucka...
das fast</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dang sucka&#8230;<br />
das fast</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-491655</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-491655</guid>
		<description>oooooookaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy ...................... stephen hawking...........</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oooooookaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. stephen hawking&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-491644</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-491644</guid>
		<description>over-thinking fail</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>over-thinking fail</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KaizerTeel</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-490185</link>
		<dc:creator>KaizerTeel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-490185</guid>
		<description>Actually. You all Fail. Einsteins Theory clearly does not state that an INFINITE amount of energy i needed. It states that 9.0 × 10^16 joules per kilogram are needed to travel at light speed.

Which can be more properly expressed as 1 Gram traveling at the speed of light having 21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy.

It says nothing of infinity, True these are ridiculus amounts of energy, but not infinite. and strictly speaking an item that does not have Mass, does not have energy. Ergo Light has Mass. since it gives heat and light :)

And there is no proof of anything moving fast to create a blackhole. or even make the universe end. in fact anything that ever made a black hole was standing relativly still.

Oh and MASS never change. WEIGHT will be diffrent on Earth an on the Moon. but MASS will be the same as long as DENSITY is equal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually. You all Fail. Einsteins Theory clearly does not state that an INFINITE amount of energy i needed. It states that 9.0 × 10^16 joules per kilogram are needed to travel at light speed.</p>
<p>Which can be more properly expressed as 1 Gram traveling at the speed of light having 21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy.</p>
<p>It says nothing of infinity, True these are ridiculus amounts of energy, but not infinite. and strictly speaking an item that does not have Mass, does not have energy. Ergo Light has Mass. since it gives heat and light <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>And there is no proof of anything moving fast to create a blackhole. or even make the universe end. in fact anything that ever made a black hole was standing relativly still.</p>
<p>Oh and MASS never change. WEIGHT will be diffrent on Earth an on the Moon. but MASS will be the same as long as DENSITY is equal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-483883</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:11:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-483883</guid>
		<description>Mage Win</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mage Win</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MostlyCorrect</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-481877</link>
		<dc:creator>MostlyCorrect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-481877</guid>
		<description>I can travel faster than the speed of light. And to prove it, I&#039;m going to type my next comment at 18 times the speed of light and post it before this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can travel faster than the speed of light. And to prove it, I&#8217;m going to type my next comment at 18 times the speed of light and post it before this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MostlyCorrect</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-481871</link>
		<dc:creator>MostlyCorrect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-481871</guid>
		<description>See.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-470624</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-470624</guid>
		<description>uhm its proven that once you surpass the speed of light by any mesurment of speed at all you will then enter the fifth demension. we are in the 4th dimension (length width height timedepth) and the 5th would ad speed depth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>uhm its proven that once you surpass the speed of light by any mesurment of speed at all you will then enter the fifth demension. we are in the 4th dimension (length width height timedepth) and the 5th would ad speed depth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harpuia</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-455507</link>
		<dc:creator>Harpuia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-455507</guid>
		<description>Actually, If you had 2 clocks, if one was stationary, and you had the other in a vehicle that could travel at or near the speed of light, the stationary clock would seem to &quot;Tick&quot; slower, while the opposite would be true if you were able to see the moving clock while stationary.  Therefore, you would have traveled forward in time.
Temporal Dilation.

Form Wikipedia, on time travel via time dilation:

Time dilation is permitted by Albert Einstein&#039;s special and general theories of relativity. These theories state that, relative to a given observer, time passes more slowly for bodies moving quickly relative to that observer, or bodies that are deeper within a gravity well.[42] For example, a clock which is moving relative to the observer will be measured to run slow in that observer&#039;s rest frame; as a clock approaches the speed of light it will almost slow to a stop, although it can never quite reach light speed so it will never completely stop. For two clocks moving inertially (not accelerating) relative to one another, this effect is reciprocal, with each clock measuring the other to be ticking slower. However, the symmetry is broken if one clock accelerates, as in the twin paradox where one twin stays on Earth while the other travels into space, turns around (which involves acceleration), and returns—in this case both agree the traveling twin has aged less. General relativity states that time dilation effects also occur if one clock is deeper in a gravity well than the other, with the clock deeper in the well ticking more slowly; this effect must be taken into account when calibrating the clocks on the satellites of the Global Positioning System, and it could lead to significant differences in rates of aging for observers at different distances from a black hole.
It has been calculated that, under general relativity, a person could travel forward in time at a rate four times that of distant observers by residing inside a spherical shell with a diameter of 5 meters and the mass of Jupiter.[15] For such a person, every one second of their &quot;personal&quot; time would correspond to four seconds for distant observers. Of course, squeezing the mass of a large planet into such a structure is not expected to be within our technological capabilities in the near future.


Time dilation also is in effect near Black holes, but slightly different.
The clock that is near the event horizon would seem to &quot;tick&quot; slower for all observers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, If you had 2 clocks, if one was stationary, and you had the other in a vehicle that could travel at or near the speed of light, the stationary clock would seem to &#8220;Tick&#8221; slower, while the opposite would be true if you were able to see the moving clock while stationary.  Therefore, you would have traveled forward in time.<br />
Temporal Dilation.</p>
<p>Form Wikipedia, on time travel via time dilation:</p>
<p>Time dilation is permitted by Albert Einstein&#8217;s special and general theories of relativity. These theories state that, relative to a given observer, time passes more slowly for bodies moving quickly relative to that observer, or bodies that are deeper within a gravity well.[42] For example, a clock which is moving relative to the observer will be measured to run slow in that observer&#8217;s rest frame; as a clock approaches the speed of light it will almost slow to a stop, although it can never quite reach light speed so it will never completely stop. For two clocks moving inertially (not accelerating) relative to one another, this effect is reciprocal, with each clock measuring the other to be ticking slower. However, the symmetry is broken if one clock accelerates, as in the twin paradox where one twin stays on Earth while the other travels into space, turns around (which involves acceleration), and returns—in this case both agree the traveling twin has aged less. General relativity states that time dilation effects also occur if one clock is deeper in a gravity well than the other, with the clock deeper in the well ticking more slowly; this effect must be taken into account when calibrating the clocks on the satellites of the Global Positioning System, and it could lead to significant differences in rates of aging for observers at different distances from a black hole.<br />
It has been calculated that, under general relativity, a person could travel forward in time at a rate four times that of distant observers by residing inside a spherical shell with a diameter of 5 meters and the mass of Jupiter.[15] For such a person, every one second of their &#8220;personal&#8221; time would correspond to four seconds for distant observers. Of course, squeezing the mass of a large planet into such a structure is not expected to be within our technological capabilities in the near future.</p>
<p>Time dilation also is in effect near Black holes, but slightly different.<br />
The clock that is near the event horizon would seem to &#8220;tick&#8221; slower for all observers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xshen</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-455377</link>
		<dc:creator>Xshen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-455377</guid>
		<description>actually they would be in the future, 
no one could go back in time :(

(in the shuttle&#039;s frame of reference, the time is slower comparing to the time in our frame of reference)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually they would be in the future,<br />
no one could go back in time <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>(in the shuttle&#8217;s frame of reference, the time is slower comparing to the time in our frame of reference)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toroku</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453190</link>
		<dc:creator>Toroku</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453190</guid>
		<description>xD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>xD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toroku</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453188</link>
		<dc:creator>Toroku</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453188</guid>
		<description>So much wrong about what you said.

First, FORWARD time travel is possible and proven.

What you are referring to is BACKWARD time travel, which was up until recently theoretically impossible.. Until the madness of string theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So much wrong about what you said.</p>
<p>First, FORWARD time travel is possible and proven.</p>
<p>What you are referring to is BACKWARD time travel, which was up until recently theoretically impossible.. Until the madness of string theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: taking</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453165</link>
		<dc:creator>taking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453165</guid>
		<description>Look into relativity please. Not all of it because I&#039;m sure it would be much too confusing for you. Just the main ideas:

Mass changes with velocity
Energy = Mass
Time changes with velocity
Time changes with gravitational strength
Gravity is a warp in spacetime, not a force
Length changes with velocity

Once you understand those, you may return to being an idiot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look into relativity please. Not all of it because I&#8217;m sure it would be much too confusing for you. Just the main ideas:</p>
<p>Mass changes with velocity<br />
Energy = Mass<br />
Time changes with velocity<br />
Time changes with gravitational strength<br />
Gravity is a warp in spacetime, not a force<br />
Length changes with velocity</p>
<p>Once you understand those, you may return to being an idiot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: taking</title>
		<link>http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453142</link>
		<dc:creator>taking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/#comment-453142</guid>
		<description>Its not that you wouldn&#039;t be able to see, or that you&#039;d be invisible... When you&#039;re moving at near the speed of light, light still comes at you from any direction AT the speed of light. The problem is just a complete impossibility. It is not possible for anything to attain the speed of light in the spacetime it is in. You would have to have infinite mass to be moving at the speed of light as long as your rest mass is nonzero. But the rest mass is what affects everything not travelling with you, so you wouldn&#039;t gain a huge gravitational field and turn into a hypermassive black hole, it&#039;s just the manner of saying that infinite mass = infinite inertia = no acceleration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its not that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to see, or that you&#8217;d be invisible&#8230; When you&#8217;re moving at near the speed of light, light still comes at you from any direction AT the speed of light. The problem is just a complete impossibility. It is not possible for anything to attain the speed of light in the spacetime it is in. You would have to have infinite mass to be moving at the speed of light as long as your rest mass is nonzero. But the rest mass is what affects everything not travelling with you, so you wouldn&#8217;t gain a huge gravitational field and turn into a hypermassive black hole, it&#8217;s just the manner of saying that infinite mass = infinite inertia = no acceleration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
