From: The Low Golden Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 04 1997 - 14:32:14 MDT
On Jul 4, 12:39pm, James Rogers wrote:
} >On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, The Low Golden Willow wrote:
} >> On Jul 4, 7:40am, Eugene Leitl wrote:
} >> } Gamma rays at the density of lead (which are opaque to gamma ;), flying
} >> } towards us at about 0.99 c. So somebody is throwing chunks of solid gamma
} >> } at only slightly subliminal velocities. As even puny supernovas generate
} >>
} >> Gamma rays... these would be photons, yes? "Slightly subliminal"? I'm
} >> having a problem here.
} >
} I believe the word you are all looking for is "subluminal" as in "less than
} light".
Ahem. Eric, Anders, and James have all pointed this out. And you know
what? I didn't even _notice_ that it was "subliminal". From the
context I assumed that I was reading "subluminal" -- so y'all have
missed my basic point.
How do gamma rays through vacuum go slower than light?
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"It was no sin, only a failure. 'And even if my troop fell thence
vanquished, yet to have attempted a lofty enterprise is still a trophy.'"
-"Forty-two years in Holy Orders, you hear all the sins in the Lexicon.
But angelism! Now there's a genuine rarey."
-- Julian May, _The Adversary_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:33 MST