Hoi Pat the measurements were within 18 inches.. they did a lot to verify the distance traveled.. it is just some particals are arriving sooner than they should. Allan
On Oct 3, 11:28 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 3, 9:28 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.universetoday.com/89407/particle-physics-and-faster-than-l... > > > This link has a video with the best clarification I've heard. One or > > two might be interested. > > > One idea I do like is that of neutrinos 'seeing' a different > > geometry. There are geometries in which distance is illusory. Knowing > > all this I'll still be taking the train into town. People at > > Manchester 1864 don't think the results will hold, but are spinning > > some examples of what would make sense assuming they are right. I > > always feel a bit of sadness when amongst scientists these days - it's > > to do with how different the world of sane dialogue is compared with > > everyday dross in which evidence is barely understood and reality > > denied in favour of Idols. > > > I've become a fan of Rosanne Barr's candidature for President. Never > > liked her show. Neutrinos probably won't do much to Einstein's > > stuff. Quite why economic data hasn't got us thinking in more > > primitive terms like hers I don't understand. This is where the > > detail and supposed links with theory drives me. We remain medieval > > in all except science. Scientists do not proceed in very rational > > ways and it seems odd to me we abstract a false notion of this into > > our more social affairs. The model of non-science "science" in > > politics and journalism needs to be eradicated so that values,passion, > > humour and compassion can flow without being shunned as > > 'emotionalism'. Tiny, abberant 'neutrinos' that might be tachyons > > (with strange mass) can influence scientific thinking,yet years of > > super-rich looting, war and more and more of our own in poverty hardly > > cut muster amongst those in power. I find this intolerable. It's > > like living in a world without data. > > There are a couple of factors CERN needs to take into account before > they can make any stong claims because the distance involved MUST be > within 18 metres and the time within 60 nanoseconds, otherwise they've > made a miscalculation. Firstly, were there any earth tremors between > the last time they measured the distance and the time of the > experiments that may have altered the distance. Secondly, there is no > way to tag a neutrino with a return address, How do they know for > certain that the neutrinos that struck the destination at Gran Sasso > were, in fact, from CERN? Given the background of billions of stars > in our galaxy and including all the stars in other galaxies, there is > every chance that one of these stars was lined up at just the right > time to shoot a stream of neutrinos in just the right direction to > land in Gran Sasso. The fact that all stars can emit neutrinos in any > direction at any time makes for countless sources of neutrinos and, > with that, countless destinations. As it is very difficult to stop a > neutrino, there is every chance that the neutrinos that landed at Gran > Sasso just prior to the expected time, were, in fact, from an > unexpected source. Proving or disproving that is nigh on impossible; > so I put very little weight on this seemingly aberrant result, > especially as a similar aberrant result happened in the States a few > years back and it was discovered that, in truth, a miscalculation had > been made by the scientists and the speed of light remained > unchallenged. We'll see.
