[quote]siouxperman wrote:
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
An interesting explanation that disproves neutrinos being FTL on the basis of relativity itself.[/quote]
where im from dvice is a sex shop
My school just posted this on our interface.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It about knows where to put satellites.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My school just posted this on our interface.
So basically, they forgot to take relativity into account when measuring relativity, hah.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My school just posted this on our interface.
Uh, I thought they accounted for all the potential margins of error hence the margin of error was 10 ns? Well, I guess we’ll get to find out. I would be really disappointed by such a clumsy mistake. But oh well, life goes on and current theories will stand.
Whew!!! that was close LOL!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My school just posted this on our interface.
Uh, I thought they accounted for all the potential margins of error hence the margin of error was 10 ns? Well, I guess we’ll get to find out. I would be really disappointed by such a clumsy mistake. But oh well, life goes on and current theories will stand.[/quote]
This bit. Although, I would add “for now” to that.
Rise from the dead physics and be correct again!!!
In light of these results that possibly it is possible to travel faster than light, thought this a good article about scientific discovery. Often times we hear from global warming believers that the science is settled. No more discussion is allowed. And that billions if not trillions need to be spent on fixes they prescribe. But as these results shows, science is often a tricky subject, liable to change with new information test results.
“Settled?”
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/19/settled/
From the article:
“What?s interesting, of course, is how much more mature physicists seem to be than climatologists. Dissent from a scientific paradigm much more firmly established than anything in climate science isn?t greeted with howls of rage, fury and charges of heresy. Many physicists are skeptical, as well they should be, of evidence that seems contrary to decades of experiment and analysis, but the overwhelming mood seems to be one of curiosity rather than rage. Could these new results possibly be real? What would this mean if it is true? How can we check these results to see how fast these neutrinos are really moving?
This is how real science operates. While I believe that the climate scientists are broadly correct subject to all the usual qualifications (temperatures are rising, the rise is associated with an accelerated production of greenhouse gasses by human activity, and further increases in greenhouse gas levels look likely to promote continued temperature increases and associated climate change), I continue to think that the heresy-hunting, quack remedy promoting climate change movement is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And challenges to the conclusions of climate science, and questions about computer models and the predictions they generate need to be answered by careful and reasoned debate, not by name calling and ad hominem arguments.”