Timeline for What is the equivalent of sub-/supersonic for the speed of light?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2018 at 6:20 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Apr 2, 2014 at 22:13 | vote | accept | Maesumi | ||
| Mar 16, 2014 at 14:40 | comment | added | Jason C | @FumbleFingers Your bosons give me a hadron. ;) ;) ;) | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 14:19 | comment | added | KRyan | @FumbleFingers Huh. You are indeed correct, I didn't realize that photons were the only one. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 13:34 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @KRyan: Wikipedia says In particle physics, a massless particle is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. Currently, the only known massless particles are gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons. And hadrons are either baryons (protons & neutrons), or mesons - which are too hard for me, but I don't think they zip around at lightspeed (certainly not for long! :). | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 7:43 | answer | added | Grant Phillips | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 5:23 | comment | added | KRyan | @FumbleFingers For the record, lots of other massless particles also move at c (if I remember my relativity correctly, being massless actually requires that motion occur at c), light is just the most common/well-known of them. So it's not everything except light. It still does cover the overwhelming majority of things. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 1:08 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @tchrist: It was one of your fellow countrymen who taught me about the wicked tooth[-rotting] fairy's plan to force us all to drink more Coke, in which context jinx is obviously a word associated with "the dark side". Of which I know little and believe less (I bet Darth Vader never even existed, and I certainly don't believe he was Luke's dad! :). Anyway, the point is I'm not responsible for Yanx using Jinx. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 0:49 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | @FumbleFingers Not jynges? :) “a. mod.L. jynx, pl. jynges, = L. iynx, a. Gr. ἴυγξ, pl. ἴυγγες the wryneck, a bird made use of in witchcraft; hence, a charm, a spell.” | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 19:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/444925709006688257 | ||
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:50 | answer | added | Tristan r | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:41 | comment | added | David M | @FumbleFingers That was RyeBread's objection, not mine. That said, I think a three-way jinx would require each to buy the other a coke. And then to see who could open it the fastest. That person would be declared the jinxer, and the others the jinxees. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:36 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @David: Not at all - they're jinks, as in Philip Roth has a scene in Portnoy's Complaint wherein Alexander Portnoy and his girlfriend festively hire a prostitute for some three-way high jinks. As ever, context (and spelling) is all. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:32 | comment | added | RyeɃreḁd | @FumbleFingers - You are ruining the word three-way. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:19 | answer | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:19 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @David: Oh, my sainted aunt! Who would have to buy the Cokes in a three-way Jinx? | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:14 | comment | added | David M | @FumbleFingers I was just typing the same about the lack of necessity for sub-lightspeed. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:14 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | Sci-fi writers sometimes use FTL for "Faster Than Light", but obviously so far as the boffins are concerned no such thing is possible anyway. And we don't really need "sub-light speed" since that's basically everything except light. But there are several thousand written usages to show that people do use it. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:12 | comment | added | John Lawler | Superluminal or FTL for the positive, but nothing special for ordinary velocities, even relativistic ones. Sublight or sub-lightspeed are some of the terms that appear in science fiction stories, but they're guessing at future usages rather than reporting them. Since nothing moves faster than light that we know of, there's little non-SF usage. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:11 | answer | added | Canis Lupus | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 18:07 | history | asked | Maesumi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |