On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit
The GPS device corrects for this error. In fact, this is the first source of
error accounted by the device:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-112516142975720/unrestricted/ch7.pdf
Either all GPS devices they used were broken or the result is just a
coincidence.
2011/10/14 Terry
This is rather interesting, because if true, it would be the first real test
that could give a positive verification for the special theory of
relativity. That is because the speed of the orbiting clock should not
depend on relative speed of the clock, but intrinsic speed, if special
relativity is
OMG -- of course! You can't synchronize (all) clocks on the Earth's
surface -- it's a rotating frame, and Sagnac comes around and bites you
on the bumm if you try! Yet by using the GPS satellite signals, which
are available everywhere, they were doing essentially that: using a
universal time
As far as I know, each GPS device sycs with several different satellites, or
clocks, at least 3, and also corrections for gravitational effects from
general relativity.
2011/10/14 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
OMG -- of course! You can't synchronize (all) clocks on the Earth's
surface
Regarding gravitational time dilation. Since gravitational acceleration is
countered exactly by centripetal acceleration I can not see why it should be
included in the pdf you refer to.
David
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
The GPS device corrects for
On 11-10-14 02:53 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
As far as I know, each GPS device sycs with several different
satellites, or clocks, at least 3, and also corrections for
gravitational effects from general relativity.
That's not the point. The GPS system could be absolutely perfect and
the
subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Regarding gravitational time dilation. Since gravitational acceleration is
countered exactly by centripetal acceleration I can not see why it should be
included in the pdf you refer to.
David
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM
They do take account of that.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: 2011/10/14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
**
On 11-10-14 02:53 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
As far as I know
-14 03:11 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
They do take account of that.
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Stephen A. Lawrence* sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com
Date: 2011/10/14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster
than light
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
On 11-09-26 01:56 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 20:46, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
From first principles if one starts with the notion that everyone
should see light as travelling at the same speed, then a simple
Hi,
On 14-10-2011 21:04, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The point is they're using a time value which is universal. An
observer hanging in space, stationary, directly over the pole, looking
down at GPS receivers all over the Earth would see that, at a given
moment, they /all showed the same
On 11-10-14 05:58 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 14-10-2011 21:04, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The point is they're using a time value which is universal. An
observer hanging in space, stationary, directly over the pole,
looking down at GPS receivers all over the Earth would see that,
If one use special relativity to sychronize clocks than the idea of
absolute time is neither obselete nor erroneous.
Harry
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
This is rather interesting, because if true, it would be the first real test
that could
It doesn't matter that there is no sensible result on Earth.
Universal time is an idea. It is not something you can know through
your senses.
Clocks don't comprehend the concept of universal time. They are just
instruments for measuring (universal) time whose tick-rate is subject
to various
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Using clocks in another frame (the GPS clocks) to synchronize the clocks in
the rotating frame (on the surface of the earth) just adds confusion, it
doesn't avoid the problem, which is fundamental. In particular, if
On 11-10-14 09:44 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
Using clocks in another frame (the GPS clocks) to synchronize the clocks in
the rotating frame (on the surface of the earth) just adds confusion, it
doesn't avoid the problem,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Sure, but if you then assume that it's isotropic, without measuring it, and
you're working with coordinates in which it's not, you'll get wrong answers.
It might be neither isotropic nor homogeneous. We won't know
It is like trying to eat correctly in the presence of the Queen.
How should I hold that 'spoon' and when should I use it?
Harry
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Sure, but if
On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three
On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three
2011/9/27 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional
universe.
If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
On 23 Sep 2011, at 20:46, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
From first principles if one starts with the notion that everyone should see
light as travelling at the same speed, then a simple derivation naturally
leads to the Lorenz contraction
: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.h
tml
I dont have the good link, but a friend of mine with access to several
journals verified, faster than light IN ATMOSPHERE (which is where
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
would suppress the result to avoid going against the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
would suppress the result to avoid going against the
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
familiar four (three of
You can see the experiment explained right now...
http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/
mic
2011/9/23 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
familiar four (three of
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/neutrinos-may-have-traveled-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/2011/09/23/gIQAo04HqK_blog.html
Post science writer Joel Achenbach says that he’s sticking with Einstein, at
least for now, because:
Einstein’s theory... isn’t based primarily on
Indeed, Relativity is extemely ugly theory because it is at the fundamental
level inconsistent with quantum mechanics (e.g. entanglement and it is
classical theory). This means that it is certainly false theory.
And also general relativity is filled with anomaly, because in the scope of
general
At least he calls the finding enigmatic rather than delusional or an
error.
In my opinion, the findings are probably the result of unknown neutrino
properties, or of new neutrino flavors, colors, whatevers. We'll
have to patiently wait to know more, I suppose.
In any case, the findings per se
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s
If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
the Michelson-Morley
Statistical blunder ?
http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
From the above, the OPERA result becomes 61 ns with a statistical
uncertainty of 24 ns and a
systematic uncertainty of 7 ns. Even if we were to take the
systematic uncertainty to be accurate, this
result is now within two
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s
If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
the Michelson-Morley
a...@well.com
Date: 2011/9/23
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Statistical blunder ?
http://johncostella.webs.com/**neutrino-blunder.pdfhttp://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
From the above, the OPERA result becomes 61 ns
On 23 Sep 2011, at 00:55, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
My understanding of that postulate of relativity was “nothing with mass”
could attain or exceed C. Because, as the speed of the object approaches C,
inertial mass approaches infinity, attaining infinity when v=C, and infinite
mass is
On 23 Sep 2011, at 15:30, Terry Blanton wrote:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra,
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 00:55, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
My understanding of that postulate of relativity was nothing with
mass could attain or exceed C. Because, as the speed of the object
approaches C, inertial mass approaches infinity,
2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies
the concept of space-time,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk wrote:
That's looking less and less lightly. There's no other evidence for anything
other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
One of the main reasons for development of string theories is how weak
the gravitational force is
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She went out one day
In a relative way
And came back on the previous night.
subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She went out one day
In a relative way
And came back on the previous night.
At 02:45 PM 9/22/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Now that the Higgs doesn't exist they're free to do whatever they want.
CERN: Higgs boson 'God particle' likely does not exist
Very cool -- thank you, Steven!
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by those
trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any scientist who
actually measured a particle going faster than light would suppress the
result to avoid going against the
One good thing with special and general relativity is that if there is even
one observation that violates the speed of light barrier, everything about
the theory of relativity collapses instantly and everything must be
discarded due to logical flaw in the axioms of theory. (Perhaps this was the
I can think of 2 options: the particles warp drive or cut through an extra
dimension. But, just like the Pioneer anomaly, maybe it has a simple
explanation. In the case of the Pioneer anomaly, it was recently discovered
magnetic tapes with more data about the coordinates of one of the 4 probes
Actually, I exaggerated with this message. This observation may not falsify
relativity, but it just means that photons do not travel through aether at
maximum possible speed. Similarily when we can observe electrons traveling
faster than light in the water and thus emitting Cherenkov radiation (i
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
would suppress the result to avoid going against the establishment.
Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster than C.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
On 11-09-22 06:32 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster than C.
Say what?? But that would be, like, totally ordinary -- electrons do it
all the time. That's where Cherenkov radiation comes from.
It's also *not* what the
'mass'
real or apparent?
-m
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
On 11-09-22 06:32 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Note, Faster
Where the heck did you read the word atmosphere??? The reporter really
screwed that story up...
...which provided the particle accelerator that sent neutrinos on their
breakneck 454-mile trip UNDERGROUND from Geneva to Italy.
Underground, not thru the air!
-mark
-Original Message-
Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.html
I dont have the good link, but a friend of mine with access to several
journals verified, faster than light IN ATMOSPHERE (which is where
they beamed the neutrinos. through the atmosphere). Its mildly
interesting
Of Alexander
Hollins
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
light
http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.h
tml
I dont have the good link, but a friend of mine with access
underground... one
used an old mine-shaft.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander
Hollins
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling
57 matches
Mail list logo
