On 11/21/11 9:05 PM, Chris Albertson wrote:
You guys missed my point. I did not mean that survey and timing errors are
so large What I meant was that even if you assume unreasonably large
errors (like a surveyor being off by a full meter) you still don't get
60nS.
If I were to bet money, still I'd bet on some experimental error. That is
the safe bet. But I'd sure be happy to loose
Ah yes.. even an obvious egregious screwup in the time or distance
measurement still wouldn't account for the relatively huge difference
that's been observed.
I don't know about experimental error (in the sense of measurement
uncertainty)..
I'd go for some unexpected systematic error or factor unaccounted for.
(naturally, that "unaccounted for factor" might be that neutrinos don't
happen to follow gen'l relativity)
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
