Aw, gee. Now we've bonded. This is how I make all my friends. VS definitely one of the friendlier places on the net. That's why I gave you a rationale/weak apology for calling you a cunt!

And I think the best answer to your question about what explanation I would prefer is: a vague 2D force diagram sort of explanation with words and gestures if a graphic overlay is out of the question.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Ok, tempers can rise. I just don't like being called a cunt, especially when I can't see any reason for the increased anger. And I'm also used to VideoSift being a more friendly corner of the internet than many others. From your second comment on my profile I see that you have deeper reasons than I thought, but I believe you misunderstand my intentions, as I have partially explained below.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Here's an example: My friend was talking to me about Hellboy 2 and he said "I think it's a good metaphor." to which I said "A metaphor for what? Power? I like my metaphors a bit less obvious." (the plot hinges on a talisman which controls an unbeatable army... can't think of a more boring/lazy "metaphor" for the seeking/abuse of power.

He then wasted a great deal of energy trying to "explain" to me what a metaphor is, as if a lack of knowledge were the root of my complaint. And the really irritating part is he just persisted in trying to explain metaphors to me even after I broke down why it was a shitty and lazy metaphor. Much like you're doing now in continuing to offer me an explanation ("what form of explanation would you prefer? I'll be happy to oblige." ... I don't know dipshit, ask the pekople who don't understand it!). I still get annoyed when I think about the conversation, which was more than three years ago, because I am a neurotic mess and an assface.

The above described incident is basically the same deal as we've got going. A complaint will often stem from understanding, not a lack of understanding. To assume it stems from a lack of understanding is condescending and just irritating.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

You're being double-condescending whether you mean to or not. That's why.

When I complain about something, that doesn't mean I need you to back me up a few steps and explain why something is the way that it is. You seem to assume I don't understand what I'm seeing and that really pisses me off.

I understand why the physicist might use such language (from his POV - that of someone with a complete understanding - it seems like a suitably complete analogue for the interaction of the elements in the system). But from a practical point of view it just confuses laymen who end up trying to figure out where the "mind" of the slinky fits into the thing.

A physics explanation I would prefer would leave out such mind/will/consciousness analogues and just describe what was happening, PHYSICALLY, in the system. I.E. never tell me that electrons WANT to move from one place to another. I know what it's supposed to mean because I'm not a complete amateur in physics... but to a real layman, it's confusing as shit, trust me.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Your video, Firefly on-set shenanigans, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 8 Badge!

An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

Congratulations! Your video, Why does 1=0.999...?, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Why does 1=0.999...?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
*quality

What a wonderful compliment, thank you!!

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh yeah! If someone definitely deserves a diamond, it's you. I always know where to look whenever I need to mess with my head a little.

Oh Ornthoron!
I enjoyed that very much, so beautifully drawn, and the colors are gorgeous! Amazing how much story one can fit into 5 minutes.

Thank you so much for sifting that, and thinking of sharing it with me!

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, and as an added bonus, here's a video I think you will like:

http://videosift.com/video/Last-Fall-sad-and-beautiful-animation