admin on 
Minh on 
Dag on 
hong van on 
hongvan on 
Nieman on 
sun on 
Hậu on 
Văn Thành on 
ChienĐây là vụ nổi đình đám năm ngoái. CERN thông báo là đo lại thấy không nhanh hơn ánh sáng
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.htmlQ
|
|
|||
|
Neutrino bay nhanh hơn ánh sáng là do … đo saiĐây là vụ nổi đình đám năm ngoái. CERN thông báo là đo lại thấy không nhanh hơn ánh sáng http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.htmlQ 13 comments to Neutrino bay nhanh hơn ánh sáng là do … đo saiLeave a Reply |
||
|
Copyright © 2013 ZetaMu - All Rights Reserved |
|||
Công nhận cụ Einstein giỏi thiệt. Làm thế nào cụ nghĩ ra được ánh sáng là tốc độ cuối cùng.
Giỏi cũng chẳng bằng tiến sĩ Nguyễn Chánh Khê nhà mình, còn chế được cả máy phát điện chạy bằng nước!
This is of no surprise. My girlfriend sent me a link about the the research last year and I have never believed it.
@Dag: You may not know that the idea of ‘generators using water’ is nothing new at all. Fuel cells, for example, have been known for a long time. Motors companies even have plans to make commercial cars using fuel cells in the next 3 years. The fuel for the cells is hydrogen which of course can be isolated from natural compound as water (Well, a highschool student knows how to do this). And then now you can imagine how a ‘generator using water’ works, can’t you? And can you see your comparison is totally irrelevant?
So what’s the difficulty here? Of course, it is how to have hydrogen with low cost!
@Son: theo kết luận hiện tại thì bác Khê dùng chất khử, không phải xúc tác, thế thì bảo máy này chạy bằng nước có vẻ hơi mập mờ?
@Nam: About Dr Khe’s work, well, I’ll stay out of that argument whether it works or not. But I want to emphasize that even if it works, it is not something that can be compared with the experience of neutrino particle’s speed which, if was true, may challenge one of the most important theories of modern physics.
@Nam: You may wonder why I need to emphasize that? It was because I realized that the comparison is misleading. One is theoretically impossible (if you still believe Einstein’s relativity is still true) while the other is practically impossible. By the way, arguing about whether it is ‘catalyst’ or ‘reducer’ is a good exercise for a high school chemistry student. I don’t know why he, Dr Khue, has made a false statement which about it. It’s childish.
We should read Dag’s post with with sarcasm. There is no real comparison here.
@anhnhan: Why should we do so?
@Son: because you can read Vietnamese but chose to answer in English instead (and you should also take this as sarcasm too).