| Revision as of 04:02, 27 August 2012 editTazerdadog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers9,045 edits →Wait a minute← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:23, 13 November 2012 edit undoSchapel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,091 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| It is slower by 1.5 fm/s, but would only be behind 0.15 fm after a full year? There is a problem here. | It is slower by 1.5 fm/s, but would only be behind 0.15 fm after a full year? There is a problem here. | ||
| ] (]) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | ] (]) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :0.15 fs, not 0.15 fm. The bigger problem is the "year-long" race. A year in what frame of reference? Certainly not relative to the particle -- the particle would observe light traveling at the speed of light. I guess it is relative to a staionary observer. -- ] (]) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:23, 13 November 2012
Wait a minute
It is slower by 1.5 fm/s, but would only be behind 0.15 fm after a full year? There is a problem here. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- 0.15 fs, not 0.15 fm. The bigger problem is the "year-long" race. A year in what frame of reference? Certainly not relative to the particle -- the particle would observe light traveling at the speed of light. I guess it is relative to a staionary observer. -- Schapel (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)