It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
he supposedly got it wrong a few weaks ago why step down now
As a neutrino propagates through space, the quantum mechanical phases of the three mass states advance at slightly different rates due to the slight differences in the neutrino masses. This results in a changing mixture of mass states as the neutrino travels, but a different mixture of mass states corresponds to a different mixture of flavor states. So a neutrino born as, say, an electron neutrino will be some mixture of electron, mu, and tau neutrino after traveling some distance.
Originally posted by Cauliflower
I think they want us to think this through ourselves.
The neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived several hours before the visible light.
Gravity wells might effect photons more than neutrinos.
Originally posted by Cauliflower
I think they want us to think this through ourselves.
The neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived several hours before the visible light.
Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
Perhaps he was onto something and TPTB considered him a threat to their aged laws and decided to do away with him.
doing the same experiment several hundred times with the same error is not independent verification.
really? Who was that then?
CERN stunned the world when it announced last week it had clocked neutrinos moving between CERN labs in Switzerland and San Grass, Italy faster than the speed of light.
Since then physicists have been busy running calculations to confirm the findings, while also looking at data from 2007.
The four-year-old information comes from the Fermilab National Accelerator in Illinois and their MINOS experiment in Soudan, Minnesota that produced the same results found at CERN.
Because the Fermilab results were within a margin of error, no announcements were made at the time. CERN's results, however, are such a statistical certainty that were it not such an earth-shaking event, the news would already be considered a new discovery.
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by DJW001
I don't see why he had to step down. Maybe failure needs to be tolerated a little bit more in scientific community, at least when it's something so on the edge. This idea that if you're wrong once you'll never be able to redeem yourself is grinding science to a standstill in a lot of areas.
It's just one big giant circle jerk. That is all it is.
Find a single scientist or inventor...one...who became a household name, who wasn't considered fringe at best, or a complete outcast at worst, by the "mainstream scientific community," in their own time.
I do not hate science itself; but I do have an absolutely pitch black, passionate hatred of the type of attitude that considers itself authoritative where science is concerned. I hate the priesthood.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by petrus4
Find a single scientist or inventor...one...who became a household name, who wasn't considered fringe at best, or a complete outcast at worst, by the "mainstream scientific community," in their own time.
Einstein. von Neumann. Bohr. Planck. von Braun. Pauli. (could go on for quite some time)
You see, in most cases actual real science produces results that others can replicate, test, and falsify.
Or they make conjectures - this seems to be true but I can't find a proof.
Bedini, Bearden and to a big extent Tesla were or are not scientists. If that's the sort of person you think of when you use the word, that might be the problem.
Originally posted by DJW001
Proof of the old adage: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't" The news that neutrinos were detected rocked the world; if it were true, one of the fundamental principles of the theory of Relativity would have been undermined. Criticism of the findings were immediate, but were quickly embraced by the "alternative science" community. Repetitions of the experiment failed to reproduce the results, suggesting systematic error on the part of the OPERA team. In retrospect, it is clear that the team leader, Antonio Ereditato, rushed to publication against the better judgement of others on his team. This is not so much a reflection on Ereditato as it is on the dangers of internet driven publication; in the past, scientists had the leisure to review their work before submitting it to their peers. It could take years before a paper eventually found its way into a journal, and months after that before the findings were picked up by the popular media. Now, faced with the dictum "publish or perish," scientists are forced to release their results as quickly as possible, if only to "scoop" other researchers in the field. This has resulted in spurious "discoveries," such as superluminal neutrinos and arsenic breathing microbes. It is regrettable that the story has taken the course it has; Ereditato was no doubt a sincere and dedicated scientist. This should serve as a warning both to the scientific community to thoroughly check one's work, and to the general population to thoroughly evaluate the latest scientific results before accepting them as "fact."
www.spacedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
it is predictable and runs like a computer program.