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.

 

I believe the neutrino scientist at CERN will be vindicated

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


this is comical! you clearly don't understand what is being said in the article at all. there was a 60ns speed skew, meaning 60ns was added to any data traveling the cord. they didn't know this, so they tightened the cable, tested it and found the skew.

they didn't know there was a 60ns skew BEFORE they tested. the tightening didn't add a further 60 ns on.

also , no i'm not being paid to post here. and if you ask again i'm going to alert your posts for it. if you can't debate without insinuating that i'm a paid shill then you shouldn't post at all. it falls under common courtesy posting guidelines in the T&C.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 



this is comical!


Hardly, I think this is quite serious, actually.


you clearly don't understand what is being said in the article at all.


I'm sure that you'd like everyone to think that.


there was a 60ns speed skew, meaning 60ns was added to any data traveling the cord. they didn't know this, so they tightened the cable, tested it and found the skew.


Yes, and that means that the timing from the GPS signal was DELAYED.

What part of this are you having trouble comprehending?


they didn't know there was a 60ns skew BEFORE they tested. the tightening didn't add a further 60 ns on.


No, they ADDED a made up story about there being a 60 ns skew, and they DROVE the head scientists out of the facility because their experiment PROVED their little pet theory wrong.

And now they are on DAMAGE control, and they are messing it up quite badly, as is evidenced by the FACT that they want us to believe that a 60 ns LAG somehow caused a neutrino to register 60 ns EARLY.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


so you admit you read the article wrong and assumed a further 60ns skew that wasn't really there. you now claim they are making up the damaged cable. gotcha. well, when you can prove that i'll gladly take a look at your evidence. untill then, i trust their expertise more than your paranoia.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 



so you admit you read the article wrong and assumed a further 60ns skew that wasn't really there.


What are you blathering about?


you now claim they are making up the damaged cable.


THAT part you have correct.


well, when you can prove that i'll gladly take a look at your evidence.


Prove what?

That a LAG in the timestamp from the GPS was somehow ACCELERATED by a cable whose loose connection caused a 60 ns *LAG* in data travelling through it?

Don't make me *LAUGH*



IT is clear to me now, that the Title of this thread has already been proven accurate.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
As I understand it superluminal speeds work just fine in relativity as long as the particles don't decelerate to light speed, just as subluminals can't accelerate to it. Light speed is like an event horizon.

Disclaimer: I more versed in math than physics but there are similarities.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 



As I understand it superluminal speeds work just fine in relativity as long as the particles don't decelerate to light speed


Yeah.... that's what they keep saying, but I think they are just trying to cover their collective [snip]'s.

According to relativity, FTL speeds (Regardless of whether it transitions over the speed of light barrier or not) violates causality.

Time travel is forbidden by Physics, actually.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


That a LAG in the timestamp from the GPS was somehow ACCELERATED by a cable whose loose connection caused a 60 ns *LAG* in data travelling through it?

 


You realize they use more than one GPS to calibrate the time right? What happens when the facility receiving the neutrinos has a lag? I have to reread the article, but right there it would be a delay, not an increase.



Here is a very simple explanation of how a lag could make something appear faster:

A 1:30 (x)---------------- >>>-----------Goes to------------->>>>---------> B 1:30

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(real time 1:31)

(x) traveled from point A to point B, but point B was calibrated a minute behind. Therefore it seemed as though (x) reached the destination the moment it left.



edit on 5-4-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


That's all very well and good, but you are missing the key part of the whole debacle...

here comes the fun part.

Are you ready for the fun part?

Because this is the fun part.


Light travels through a fibre optic cable at a rate of 199,861,639 meters per second (refractive index of 1.5) compared to light in a vacuum which travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.

Now, considering that the latency of the measurement was 60 nanoseconds (nanosecond = one billionth of a second)

And considering that despite the "Cable being loose" it was still passing the data through (from the cable, to the electronics)

And also, considering that light will travel 11 meters in 60 nanoseconds within a fibre optic cable....

What caused the delay, Exactly?

Because a LOOSE connection that is still passing LIGHT through the connection, is merely separated by... what... millimetres? Micrometers?

How does that turn into a 60 nanosecond delay?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
It seems like a person smart enough to work at CERN would know how to do stuff like check for loose cables?

If faster than light travel were true, don't you think the military would want to keep it secret.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

As I understand it superluminal speeds work just fine in relativity as long as the particles don't decelerate to light speed


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by circlemaker
 

Yeah.... that's what they keep saying, but I think they are just trying to cover their collective [snip]'s.

Regardless I think it's an interesting concept but more importantly it's mathematically viable. If it weren't for this neutrino mistake I might not have considered it.




Time travel is forbidden by Physics, actually.

Funny how you worded that. I won't nitpick though.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 



Regardless I think it's an interesting concept but more importantly it's mathematically viable. If it weren't for this neutrino mistake I might not have considered it.


Well, I'm sure that you could construct a mathematical model of gravity that would allow a slight voltage change on the earth's atmosphere to predict the Crushing death of every living thing on the planet.

Doesn't make it so, though.

Relativity is a ridiculous juxtaposition of various arbitrary measurements (Dimensions) in a dimensional transformation, that actually predicts things like "Time Travel", which is just absurd, since time is an arbitrary measurement of the rate of movement.

And not, as Relativists would have you believe.... a "Dimension"


Funny how you worded that. I won't nitpick though.


Oh, no... please... do pick the nits!

This sounds interesting!
edit on 5-4-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Because a LOOSE connection that is still passing LIGHT through the connection, is merely separated by... what... millimetres? Micrometers?

How does that turn into a 60 nanosecond delay?

 


Facepalm...

reread this post.

Think about how you can know the exact times in two separate locations hundreds of miles away. I explained this already.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe, it just happens to be the fastest speed for light. It would be like saying that the speed of cows is the fastest thing in the barn, but then the chickens might have a problem with that. So the farmer would simply have to admit that the speed of cows is the fastest speed there is, for cows.

Just because so far the fastest thing we have discovered so far happens to be light, that does not mean that there is not some other form of energy that is even faster than that.

The very root of science is discovery. When you start creating false absolutes, science stops being science.





edit on 6-4-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Facepalm...

reread this post.

Think about how you can know the exact times in two separate locations hundreds of miles away. I explained this already.


I really love it when you pretend to have already answered my question, but yet you have not even approached the question itself.

It just makes your motive all the clearer....


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


He's already been proven wrong. He published against the wishes of his team, who understood the unlikelihood the neutrinos were moving this fast. They no longer felt comfortable with him leading the team. He resigned, and will never be vindicated, as he was wrong.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



He's already been proven wrong.


No, he hasen't.

There has been LOADS of speculation, ASSUMING that he was wrong.

There has been PLENTY of heresay, and pseudo-intellectual discussion, ALL assuming that he was wrong.

He has NOT, however, been PROVEN wrong.

And your post PROVES nothing, actually.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
A short statement but to the point, The equation is not complete. Humans are still learning and even in the age of great understanding and discovery, who is to tell how many of these variables are missing or off. It's like trying to master electricity times ten to the billionth power.
edit on 9-4-2012 by quantumdragon because: grammer


Whether the man/people is right or not, perhaps a wire was faulty, (doubtful), What is the speed of light in a true vacuum?, Can a true vacuum be created or exist?, does it really require infinite energy to travel the speed of light?

Its super expensive equipment + guess work X connect the dots =(theoretical)quantum physics.
edit on 9-4-2012 by quantumdragon because: clarification

edit on 9-4-2012 by quantumdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Prove what?

That a LAG in the timestamp from the GPS was somehow ACCELERATED by a cable whose loose connection caused a 60 ns *LAG* in data travelling through it?

Don't make me *LAUGH*



IT is clear to me now, that the Title of this thread has already been proven accurate.



Yes, I am not sure how you do not understand this. The neutrinos were moving for 60ns BEFORE the GPS knew they were moving. They therefore appeared to move 60ns faster than they actually did. It's very simple if you don't look at the data with your mind made up and an agenda to promote.

Please tell me how the GPS thinking they left 60ns later would make them appear slower?

Maybe you can understand it if I really dumb it down for you.
I need to travel 60 miles, I leave at noon and get there at 1pm. I went 60 miles in 60 minutes, my speed is 60mph.
Unfortunately a technical glitch caused a LAG in the signal, this lag was 30 minutes long. Instead of noon the GPS isn't informed I left until 12:30pm, and correctly times me arriving at 1pm. The data said I went 120mph.

Now do you see how a LAG makes the object appear to be FASTER.

You're welcome.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Yes, I am not sure how you do not understand this. The neutrinos were moving for 60ns BEFORE the GPS knew they were moving.


Wait... the GPS *KNEW* they were moving?

How exactly does a sattelite in space KNOW something?

Are they Sentient?




They therefore appeared to move 60ns faster than they actually did.


That's nice... would you like to post the schematics for the emitter and detectors of the neutrinos that apparently you MUST have to say these things with the confidence that you are displaying?


It's very simple if you don't look at the data with your mind made up and an agenda to promote.


I love it when you guys pretend that you know how these things work, to promote YOUR agenda.


Please tell me how the GPS thinking they left 60ns later would make them appear slower?


Please tell me how you know WHERE the "Loose Cable" was in relation to the rest of the test equipment?


Maybe you can understand it if I really dumb it down for you.


Funny, I was just thinking the exact same thing.


I need to travel 60 miles....


Blah, Blah, Blah...


Now do you see how a LAG makes the object appear to be FASTER.


Please post the schematics of the OPERA test facility.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Wait... the GPS *KNEW* they were moving?

How exactly does a sattelite in space KNOW something?

Are they Sentient?



Way to avoid what my point without answering it. The GPS "knew" the information provided it. You look like an ignorant fool so far.


That's nice... would you like to post the schematics for the emitter and detectors of the neutrinos that apparently you MUST have to say these things with the confidence that you are displaying?


Relevance? There is none. More avoidance, more ignorance.


I love it when you guys pretend that you know how these things work, to promote YOUR agenda.


I'm looking at the information provided, unless you pretend you understand the experiment at a level greater than the scientists working on it, we are both looking to them for information. You simply can't process the information without skewing it to fit yoru agenda.


Please tell me how you know WHERE the "Loose Cable" was in relation to the rest of the test equipment?


More avoidance, I responded answering how a lag makes something appear faster, proving how, so now you shift the goalposts. You sound like a fool.


Blah, Blah, Blah...


Avoiding some more.


Please post the schematics of the OPERA test facility.


Avoiding and shifting goalposts. Please explain how a lag would make the neutrinos not slower. I proved it would make them faster. You sound like a moron with your response. How about you respond to my logical argument of how the lag makes the neutrinos appear faster, or admit you were simply wrong. To continue to argue in the face of logic, responding with blah blah blah makes you sound like a little child who can't get their way.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join