Comments on: Comments on 1986

Post number 1986

aurelian — Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:35:47 -0800

Can the speed of light be broken? It's not 1 April, so this actually might be true. It'll be interesting to see the paper in Nature, if and when.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:37:46 -0800

Well, it certainly wasn't an April fools joke when I posted about it last week. The article referenced in that post also has a lot more in-depth information on the theory behind accelerating light beyond the speed of light. (hrm. my first criticism of a fellow MeFi. I feel so... entrenched! :-)

By: aurelian

aurelian — Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:40:50 -0800

And I feel so, so.... used. How can you respect me in the morni--- Whaddaya mean you don't respect me now? :) Anyways, most base and humble appy-olly-loggys for having spaced on your own link last week. What can I say, someone sent an e-mail to me and it looked interesting...

By: aurelian

aurelian — Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:42:50 -0800

Heh. Let alone it means the NY Times is doing better detail than The Times. (Insert cluck about British journalism, freeways to hell, and Rupert Murdoch here)

By: cCranium

cCranium — Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:58:24 -0800

heh. Not a problem, especially when you make me chuckle afterwards. :-) And yeah, I thought it was weird that the NY Times had a better write up also. British news sources (well, the reliable ones :-) are generally pretty good for detail.

By: lagado

lagado — Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:39:50 -0800

Wow! I've been transported back in time! Neat! For posterity: LAGADO TRAVELLED BACK IN TIME TO VISIT THIS THREAD ON GMT+10 14:39 June 6th 2001