yeah i was trying to be smart actually and draw a qi type response

I never said I knew about the specifics of photonics within materials. In fact, despite your comments about me supposedly trying to show off, I actually said very little about my knowledge. Even when asked I gave a 1 line response to the question. I didn't open with "Listen to me, I have the following qualifications : ", I just explained a few things and made some comments. If I'd wanted to go in with guns blazing it'd have been a lot different.
The original post was about the speed of light and it always being the same. That's to do with relativity, specifically special relativity. Then someone else brought up mavity and black holes, which is general relativity. Neither of them relate to the quantum interactions of photons with atoms in materials, that would be (unsurprisingly) quantum mechanics. I've studied quantum mechanics but its a big subject and I went down the particle physics route rather than the quantum properties of materials route. Like any area of science, quantum mechanics is so huge you could spend a life time working on it and only scratch 0.1% of it. I happen to be confident in the little bit I scratched but all too often those with little science experience mistake that confidence in my area of choice as no it all arrogance (not just in me, but in scientists in general).
Since I have no problem saying so, fine I was wrong in how I read your initial post. However, even if you did mean as you say in that post your "So I'm sure you can explain....." comment isn't a ringing endorsement for your attitude towards people who actually know a little bit of science, arrogant or not. But hey, I'm new here (actually I'm not, my previous account here is user number 28, but its been a fair few years) so maybe I've just got the wrong impression and things will iron themselves out as time progresses.
Anyway, I have work in the morning and I should probably get some sleep...
yeah i was trying to be smart actually and draw a qi type responseI was thinking specifically about the magnetic fields emitted by pulsars. essentially as long as certain laws aren't violated then stuff can do as it pleases.
Not really faster than light though, As it's space being created from nothing and nothing is actually moving. It's only an illusion they are moving faster.
I don't think it really qualifies as FTL in the context of this thread anyway, as the OP us dealing with the local speed of light.
To be fair to BetaNumeric, this wouldn't be the first time you've waded into a science thread, said something daft, then insisted it was a question of misinterpretation and lack of clarity rather than simply admitting fault (e.g. here).And I never said it did. You misread my initial post and if you had read it in it's full context you would have seen that I didn't.
There's strong evidence this is true of most galaxies!
Yes, but I didn't want to be asked to define what I meant by most galaxies so I just stuck with ours.
More than half?![]()
To be fair to BetaNumeric, this wouldn't be the first time you've waded into a science thread, said something daft, then insisted it was a question of misinterpretation and lack of clarity rather than simply admitting fault (e.g. here).
Interesting thread though - OcUK should have more science threads!
"The slowest speed recorded is through sodium at -272 C during which the speed of light fell to 60kph – about the speed of a bicycle."
I wouldn't dare go that fast on a bicycle.