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.

 

'Faster than light' scientist steps down

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
the old saying goes, "you got to be in it to win it" "if first you dont succeed try try again" "you got to risk it for a biscuit" "and he risked it and never get his buiscuit" .




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
If you want some more reading on the subject, this is a good place to see the connections I have been talking about in this thread.
Lorentz ether theory, uses a fixed ether, and is similar to absolute space of Newton.
en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein's relativity, works the same way and even incorporated some of Lorentz into special relativity.

So you have similar math but different interpretations.

Einstein believes in absolute space-time, not absolute space.

But you know both are valid ways to look at reality. One as a 3d matrix of dots that don't move but change value, and one where the values aren't changing but the dots are moving.

In the second case the values are often changing and the dots are moving.

But you might argue that the Lorentzian viewpoint is a mere simulation of reality. But the results are indistinguishable.

I think we can look at absolute space now since we have been programming computers for some time and recognize ways to use the concept of a field ether theory.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
OK, I actually had to create an account for this thread (Hi, everyone! Nice to meet you! Long time lurker here).

Alright, so... I clearly missed something. Since when was this "proven" to be a failed experiment?

Everything I've seen has confirmed and re-confirmed the original findings as true.

Just one small example:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

If the link doesn't work, I apologize. Like I said, I'm new here.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenFourteen
OK, I actually had to create an account for this thread (Hi, everyone! Nice to meet you! Long time lurker here).

Alright, so... I clearly missed something. Since when was this "proven" to be a failed experiment?

Everything I've seen has confirmed and re-confirmed the original findings as true.

Just one small example:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

If the link doesn't work, I apologize. Like I said, I'm new here.

no worries mate www.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 3-4-2012 by thebestnr1 because: (no reason given)

good link thanks

edit on 3-4-2012 by thebestnr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Come on people..........!!!! Do you really think that they didn't check and double check and so on... there is more to the story than the media is saying... what u think they are kids playing with a $6 billion PlayStation?? and at the first results they get there on the phone to the press... Somehow the news got out before they could hush this up and someone has to look like the idiot that made a mistake. who knows what it would mean to the whole physics world if that came out!!!!??
just a thought.............



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
As I wrote in my earlier comment I think there is something fishy going on here. An other thing I would like to mention is the announcement of the final conclusion in finding the Higgs Boson.

Towards the end of 2011 there was a little region left to investigate when it comes to colliding-energy needed to reveal the Higgs Boson. They estimated to have a final result in the first half of 2012. And we are almost there.

The scientific significance of a faster than light particle and the confirmation of the Higgs Boson are of the same order. Both discoveries can have world changing consequences.

If there is a cover-up with the faster than light nutrino experiment we can expect a cover-up with the search of the Higgs Boson too.

Thats all..


edit on 3/4/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by soficrow
 


Start changing the basic premises and assumptions and who knows where it might all lead? Protests, economic collapse, the list goes on.

Sure, the advancement of science has always led to protests and economic collapse. Hasn't it?

You expect Occupy Relativity demonstrations? "Save our slow neutrinos!"

edit on 4/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So protests against atomic energy and the bomb never happened ?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
We can only speculate...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Relatively speaking it is true, but in actuality no. Here's an example of what I mean. Say the Big Bang occurs and two objects begin speeding away in opposite directions from the location where it occurred. If they are both moving at near light speeds and you are standing on one of these objects it will appear as if the other object is moving almost twice the speed of light.


No, it really doesn't work like that. Things "appear" because of photons either emitted by them, or reflected off them. Photons move through space at 3x10^8 meters per second, regardless of the velocity of the object from which they originated. The negative aether drift experiments of the mid-19th century, and the somewhat later Michelson-Morley experiments using the Fizeau-Focault apparatus clearly demonstrated this fundamental law.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
use phrases unknown to the public and act as if ur the dogs buttoccks
[act as if u know everything]
rule 1 in the disinfo handbook CHECK



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Well for one thing this experiment has demonstrated the bipolar human condition. On one hand we are told once that neutrinos were measured to have broken c, and on the other hand we are told with hundreds of duplicates that it was a flaw in the instruments or techniques of measurements that created a false positive. We see one half of the polar latch on the one, and the other half consider the many. One never learns anything the second time a mule kicks one in the head.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
did he step down or did someone make him step down?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
As far as I am aware... and I followed this "discovery" closely.... The results of the experiments were adversely affected by not taking into account the fact that the satelite recording the transit of the nuetrino's was moving. And we all know that time is relative depending on the state of the observer..... as explained here....

en.wikipedia.org...

"Relative velocity time dilation

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. It is often interpreted as time "slowing down" for the other (moving) clock. But that is only true from the physical point of view of the local observer, and of others at relative rest (i.e. in the local observer's frame of reference). The point of view of the other observer will be that again the local clock (this time the other clock) is correct and it is the distant moving one that is slow. From a local perspective, time registered by clocks that are at rest with respect to the local frame of reference (and far from any gravitational mass) always appears to pass at the same rate."


Unfortunately, and surprisingly, the experiment did not take this miniscule variable into account..... which had the effect of the neutrino's appearing to arrive sooner than they should have......

The science is sound, just the application of it was flawed...... and this simple mistake has ruined the reputation of a large group of scinetists... and quite rightly in my opinion.... i am merely an interested observer, and I knew that this variable would effect the results....

PA.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


Do you not think that these guys living and breathing this part of physics would take that measurement correction into their "equation"? I think it is hard to believe that they overlooked that correction while using that satelite for their experiment. I am no physist but have done some simple time related experiments in my electronics study and the first thing they teach you is to be aware of the limits and (in)accuracy of your equipment.

As I understand from your reply that was all checked but forgot to consider the relativity factor. That is very strange because their experiment has everything to do with that theory so how could they be so stupid to forget this factor in their experiment? Because of the nature of the research and their educational background I have a hard time to accept that excuse.

On the other hand it is a perfect excuse to cover-up the failure of the experiment.....the theory of relativity is flawed when something goes faster than the speed of light. The cause of their wrong measurements is directly to blame on what they tried to dis-proof....a slap in the face!!

But then again.....everybody makes mistakes and in every crowd is a fool.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


What a surprise, another science theory down the drain. This one will just join the club of the other failed scientific theories such as evolution, AIDS, string theory.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 



What a surprise, another science theory down the drain. This one will just join the club of the other failed scientific theories such as evolution, AIDS, string theory.


Did you actually read the OP?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
How convenient. We don't need to worry our pretty little heads about superliminal particles, dimensional, time and space travel or free energy now, do we? That's all nonsense! Right. I hope others don't actually believe this 'failed experiment' cover story. I hope they don't kill the 2 men who stepped down. The Spokesperson resigned too...


Autiero resigned from the collaboration on 30 March, a day after OPERA spokesman Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern. The moves followed months of internal tension and media leaks and, last week, votes of no confidence in Ereditato and Autiero by OPERA's collaboration board, which consists of representatives from its member institutions.

www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 3/4/12 by RainbeauBleu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by RainbeauBleu
 



How convenient. We don't need to worry our pretty little heads about superliminal particles, dimensional, time and space travel or free energy now, do we?


No-one is stopping you from worrying your pretty little head about superluminal particles, dimensional, time and space travel or free energy. It's just that the people who actually work in the field need to go back to their drawing boards. You will note that when the results were first published, particle physicist rushed to review earlier experiments to confirm or falsify them. Many also sought for a way to incorporate the findings, if confirmed, into the framework of both quantum and relativistic physics. They were not confirmed, so theorists will have to develop another methodology to detect superluminal particles... if they exist.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
my theory is u can travel time but only miniscule seconds
look at the astronauts that came back and there watches were q few seconds off
u can give me the nobel price later



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by UnlockingDMatrix
 


If there is a conspiracy here, it's a big one for sure. I wonder if there is going to be "suicides" and "accidental deaths" for the scientist evolved?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join