The speed of light is not constant. It's only constant in a vacuum. For example, when travelling through sodium at -270 degrees, light slows to 38 miles per hour.

We can always prove relativity to Einstein with a nuclear bomb. I suppose the only way to really PROVE it to him would be for him to experience it firsthand. Ready for science?

would it respond simultaneously though? I've seen a bullet fired into an apple and there was a definite ripple visible on the film

"Sigh did no one see the reference to C?"

Well, you just adapted your first post after I told you there wasn't any constant speed of light except for in a vacuum. X(

I asked Lateralis (he's a physics phd) to post a small explanation btw.
I'm still pondering myself. Could you supply a source that literally states these attributes of nanotubes?

At this time, I go with this:
"It has a tremendously high stress point"

Doesn't it have to have a stress point that equals infinity to make it react simultaniously on both ends?

I meant that it doesn't always go at that speed Chris...

Bonus points to Wouter for spotting the bleeding obvious, too.

(Except that "stress point" isn't a scientific or engineering term... but what you mean is correct.)

Why thank you, Lat!!
Flint, seems you've been proved wrong by someone you claimed to be an unworthy stupid nothing

Stress is a well defined concept.  It is a tensor of order 2. 

"Moment of force" is force times distance.  That is, if you have a piece of 2x4 held up at either end by a support of some description and then placed a weight in the middle you can calcuate the moment of force.  Often this is simply refered to as "moment".

What you and Flint said about the "stress point" being the point of failure when the system is overloaded is not correct scientific parlance.  At least, it is no term that I have ever come across in my years a physicist, either in physics or engineering departments.

In the 2x4 example above, the weight on the beam will induce stress and strain fields within the 2x4, which are in principle calcuable and certainly simulatable.  The Wikipedia article on mechanical stress is very thorough, but isn't for the faint of heart.

Right, that's enough IC for this month.  I'll bid you all adieu.  But I'll keep a look out for the geek symbol in the sky for when I'm next needed!

The stress point was proper in context.

Carbon nanotubes:

http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/ntproperties/

I think that Lateralis, a graduated physicist and working on a phd in semiconductors, has a better graps of the whole area than you, Flint.
What keeps you from admitting your error is just your personal feud with Lateralis. It probably also doesn't help that I seem to be correct.

sorry I don't believe this has been demonstrated, because if it had been, we'd skip fiberoptic communications and girdle the earth with nanotubes.  because if I stamp a nanotube in Berlin and it hits Beijing at supralight speeds that would beat the hell out of beaming a signal at light speed to a satellite and reflecting it down at light speed to Beijing.