At 08:16 21-11-11, you wrote:
I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is
planned, firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not
cited, but I expect it would be Fermilab to Sudbury Ontario. If
this is the case, then there will still be the problem of not being
michael.c...@sfr.fr said:
I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
expect it would be Fermilab to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case, then
there will still be the problem of not being able
Le 21/11/2011 09:49, Hal Murray a écrit :
michael.c...@sfr.fr said:
I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
expect it would be Fermilab to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case, then
there
Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the
centre of the earth?
The surface distance is greater than the distance at a depth.
A map distance is made less, a few hundred metres underground.
Just another thought,
Cheers, Neville Michie
Neville,
If they haven't thought of that one I'd be very very disappointed.
Jim
On Monday, 21 November 2011, Neville Michie namic...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the
centre of the earth?
The surface distance is greater than the distance
Have you already made calculations? For 200 meters underground I have a
path 20 meter shorter...
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Neville Michie namic...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the
centre of the earth?
The surface distance is
On 11/21/2011 09:49 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
michael.c...@sfr.fr said:
I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
expect it would be Fermilab to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case, then
there
On 11/21/2011 11:49 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote:
Neville,
If they haven't thought of that one I'd be very very disappointed.
They have.
The neutrino path goes as deep as 11,2 km below ground if I recall
things correctly.
Cheers,
Magnus
Jim
On Monday, 21 November 2011, Neville
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
Thoughts anyone?
Rob Kimberley
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
They havn't found the systematic error yet?
I'd be far more inclined to believe the result if it were confirmed by
another lab, using a different methodology.
-John
=
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
Thoughts anyone?
Rob Kimberley
In message 01cca7b9$09112a50$1b337ef0$@btinternet.com, Robin Kimberley
writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
The most intelligent comment I have heard about it so far, was from
Demitrious @ USNO, who said that since Neutrinoes are not of
electromagnetic nature,
On 11/20/2011 08:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message01cca7b9$09112a50$1b337ef0$@btinternet.com, Robin Kimberley
writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
The most intelligent comment I have heard about it so far, was from
Demitrious @ USNO, who said that since
breakthrough.
73 Eugene W2HX
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of J. Forster
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again
On 11/20/2011 8:17 PM, Robin Kimberley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
Thoughts anyone?
Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
This is the current line of thought at CERN. In this perspective, the neutrinos
would have traveled
and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...
They havn't found the systematic error yet?
I'd be far more inclined to believe the result if it were confirmed by
another lab, using a different methodology.
-John
=
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science
In message 4ec95f99.80...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
On 11/20/2011 08:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It seems that nature has something to teach us. A whole bunch of new
physics have something new to work on. :)
One of the really interesting things about neutrions is that
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Alberto di Bene dib...@usa.net wrote:
On 11/20/2011 8:17 PM, Robin Kimberley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
Thoughts anyone?
Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
This is the current line
I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster than
we thought it is? Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos are
less affected by stuff than photons. Maybe they travel closer to c than
the actual photons we have been able to measure...
On Sunday, November
dib...@usa.net said:
Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
This is the current line of thought at CERN. In this perspective, the
neutrinos would have traveled for a distance shorter than thought, taking a
shortcut via the fourth dimension, so to speak...
On 11/20/2011 11:17 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
How does that interact with the SuperNova observations?
I thought that was a good match for current theories.
From what I know of the supernova observations (very little, indeed), in that
case there were
some assumptions, impossible to verify for
On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote:
I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster than
we thought it is? Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos are
less affected by stuff than photons. Maybe they travel closer to c than
the actual photons we have
Am 20.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Magnus Danielson:
On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote:
I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster
than
we thought it is? Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos
are
less affected by stuff than photons. Maybe
Le 20/11/2011 23:57, Hal Murray a écrit :
Perhaps if enough funding can be obtained repeating the measurments between
three or more stations (with diferent distances between them but similar
equipment at each site) might eleminate some of the ambiguity. Being able
to compare the measurements
23 matches
Mail list logo
