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: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


If the loose cable was being used to synchronise the clocks at both ends of the experiment and the receiver clock was started 60ns late due to the loose cable then they neutrinos would have appeared to have arrived early. No mystery there.

Where there is a mystery is how a loose optical cable added 60ns to a signal. 60ns is a long time when dealing with optical cables.

I also think it is stupid that the lead scientist resigned for being wrong. He simply reported the finding of his teams experiment. Scientists should not feel pressured in this way.

edit on 11-4-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe


I also think it is stupid that the lead scientist resigned for being wrong. He simply reported the finding of his teams experiment. Scientists should not feel pressured in this way.

 


No, but they should know when to make their findings public. And if there is a chance of error it's usually best to wait until they make sure no error was made.



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



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


I'm sure that you think so...



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


Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you had detailed schematics of the neutron detector set up at the OPERA test facility....

Would you like to provide a link to this information?


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.


You aren't looking at the "Information", you are looking at what someone SAYS about the information, that they were TOLD about by someone else who HEARD about the information from someone else.

You do not have direct, first hand knowledge of the experiment, any more than WE do.

Stop claiming that your explanations are satisfactory, when they are anything but.


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.


I never said that your explination was stupid, I only asked you to provide proof that it was accurate.

So far, you have yet to do that, because you have no idea how the experiment was set up.

So, since YOU have avoided MY question, that makes YOU look like the fool now, doesn't it?

It's a simple question, why don't you answer it?


Avoiding some more.


No, that was not avoidance, it was more like ridicule of your pointless attacks.




Avoiding and shifting goalposts.


At the same time?

Wow, I'm on FIRE!



Please explain how a lag would make the neutrinos not slower.


Do I really have to spell that out for you?

I mean, honestly?

Because that would be sad.


I proved it would make them faster.


You provided a possible explanation, you PROVED nothing.

And there goes all of your credibility as a scientist... lol

"Proof" he says...



You sound like a moron with your response.


To who?

To you?



You are really hilarious, calling ME a moron, when YOU are the one who thinks that YOUR supposed "Explanation" is the same thing as proof.

You really do crack me up...



How about you respond to my logical argument of how the lag makes the neutrinos appear faster, or admit you were simply wrong.


I did respond, I asked you to provide the schematics for the equipment that you are presuming that you know how it is set up.

And you respond with attacks instead of a simple "I don't Know"

That makes you look either Dumb, or like you are trying to hide something.


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.


You are too funny... I'll just let that one slide until your next response....

I hope you like humble pie, because you are eating it for breakfast.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
 



If the loose cable was being used to synchronise the clocks at both ends of the experiment and the receiver clock was started 60ns late due to the loose cable then they neutrinos would have appeared to have arrived early. No mystery there.


Unless the loose cables were the ones in-between the clock, and the detector, then it would have appeared to arrive "LATE"


Where there is a mystery is how a loose optical cable added 60ns to a signal. 60ns is a long time when dealing with optical cables.


Agreed.


I also think it is stupid that the lead scientist resigned for being wrong.


He didn't resign for being wrong.

He resigned by media pressure... his experiment hasn't been refuted yet, so one cannot say that he was wrong.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


There are none so blind as he who will not see. I'm done. I made my point that the 60ns lag would make neutrinos appear faster, when your assertion was it would make them appear slower. Enjoy your ignorance.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

I also think it is stupid that the lead scientist resigned for being wrong. He simply reported the finding of his teams experiment. Scientists should not feel pressured in this way.

edit on 11-4-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)


The reason he resigned (as I understand it) was due to his team no longer having confidence in him. The rest of his team did not want the results published, they believed there was an error which would account for the discrepancy. He rushed to public the information anyway, despite what his team wanted. They were vindicated, he was not, having faith and trust in your leaders is very important.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



There are none so blind as he who will not see. I'm done. I made my point that the 60ns lag would make neutrinos appear faster, when your assertion was it would make them appear slower. Enjoy your ignorance.


Keep talking out of your butt... it seems to be what you enjoy, and are good at.

You still have not provided any proof that what you are saying, is what happened.

And you never will.

"There are none so blind as he who will not see." Indeed.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



The reason he resigned (as I understand it) was due to his team no longer having confidence in him.

............

They were vindicated


How were they vindicated, exactly?

We STILL do not know what the real results were, because they have scheduled the new rounds of tests for *MAY*

Stop claiming that he was wrong, when you have absolutely no evidence to back up your position.

Honestly, it's like I'm arguing with a toddler.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


You believe all information released is a lie so you make it impossible to offer proof. You stated that the official story had to be a lie because a lag would not appear to make the neutrinos faster, but slower, meaning a lag would make the neutrinos 120ns faster than the speed of light instead of the 60 measured. Here's your quote, enjoy eating your words. I proved that a 60ns lag would account for the discrepancy not double it as you asserted, I'm done with you since you desire ignorance.


The Neutrino's clocked in EARLY, meaning that if there was a *DELAY* in the recorded measurement of the neutrino's arrival time...

That would make the TOTAL discrepancy 120 nanoseconds... not 60, or Zero.

Man, these people aren't even BOTHERING to THINK about their coverups anymore, are they?



That means that the DELAY in the timing would actually have pushed the recorded neutrino's flight time towards the SLOWER end of the spectrum.

Meaning that the neutrino was actually FASTER than originally measured.

OOPS!





posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



You believe all information released is a lie so you make it impossible to offer proof.


You believe that some journalist stating a possibility as a certainty is synonymous with proof.

And that is sad.


You stated that the official story had to be a lie because a lag would not appear to make the neutrinos faster, but slower, meaning a lag would make the neutrinos 120ns faster than the speed of light instead of the 60 measured.


Sort of, yeah... that's pretty close to what I said.


I proved that a 60ns lag would account for the discrepancy not double it as you asserted


Pffft... you offered as much "proof" as I did.


I'm done with you....


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA oh, that's so cute.

And no, you are not.


....since you desire ignorance.


No, actually, I don't like you at all.


Have you figured out how a loose fibre optic cable makes a 60 nanosecond delay yet?

Or have your disinfo overlords not gotten back to you yet?


edit on 15-4-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


You talk an awful lot for someone that doesn't have anything to say...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


How are you still failing to gasp this rather simple concept?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 



You talk an awful lot for someone that doesn't have anything to say...


Oh, I'm sorry... were you having trouble grasping what I said?

It was relatively straightforward.

reply to post by john_bmth
 



How are you still failing to gasp this rather simple concept?


Which simple concept are you asking me about?

The fact that people are claiming that the OPERA scientist was wrong when the tests have not been repeated with the "Fixed Optical Cable" to confirm that this *WAS* the "Problem"?

The Fact that there are people in this thread bantering on about how the experiment was set up, despite the complete lack of technical documentation that backs up their position?

Or was it the FACT that a loose optical cable will *NOT* induce a 60 nanosecond latency?

Which simple concept were you referring to?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join