PDA

View Full Version : Science Particles found to break speed of light


Donger
09-22-2011, 03:28 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/particles-recorded-moving-faster-light-cern-164441657.html

GENEVA (Reuters) - An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe.

Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the researchers, told Reuters that measurements taken over three years showed neutrinos pumped from CERN near Geneva to Gran Sasso in Italy had arrived 60 nanoseconds quicker than light would have done.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."

If confirmed, the discovery would undermine Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is a "cosmic constant" and that nothing in the universe can travel faster.

That assertion, which has withstood over a century of testing, is one of the key elements of the so-called Standard Model of physics, which attempts to describe the way the universe and everything in it works.

The totally unexpected finding emerged from research by a physicists working on an experiment dubbed OPERA run jointly by the CERN particle research center near Geneva and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in central Italy.

A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos -- tiny particles that pervade the cosmos -- were fired over a period of 3 years from CERN toward Gran Sasso 730 (500 miles) km away, where they were picked up by giant detectors.

Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds -- or 60 billionths of a second -- less than light beams would have taken.

"It is a tiny difference," said Ereditato, who also works at Berne University in Switzerland, "but conceptually it is incredibly important. The finding is so startling that, for the moment, everybody should be very prudent."

Ereditato declined to speculate on what it might mean if other physicists, who will be officially informed of the discovery at a meeting in CERN on Friday, found that OPERA's measurements were correct.

"I just don't want to think of the implications," he told Reuters. "We are scientists and work with what we know."

Much science-fiction literature is based on the idea that, if the light-speed barrier can be overcome, time travel might theoretically become possible.

The existence of the neutrino, an elementary sub-atomic particle with a tiny amount of mass created in radioactive decay or in nuclear reactions such as those in the Sun, was first confirmed in 1934, but it still mystifies researchers.

It can pass through most matter undetected, even over long distances, and without being affected. Millions pass through the human body every day, scientists say.

To reach Gran Sasso, the neutrinos pushed out from a special installation at CERN -- also home to the Large Hadron Collider probing the origins of the universe -- have to pass through water, air and rock.

The underground Italian laboratory, some 120 km (75 miles) to the south of Rome, is the largest of its type in the world for particle physics and cosmic research.

Around 750 scientists from 22 different countries work there, attracted by the possibility of staging experiments in its three massive halls, protected from cosmic rays by some 1,400 metres (4,200 feet) of rock overhead.

Buck
09-22-2011, 03:30 PM
tl;dr

But I doubt we have any device that can measure the velocity or speed of anything traveling that fast.

Donger
09-22-2011, 03:31 PM
tl;dr

But I doubt we have any device that can measure the velocity or speed of anything traveling that fast.

LMAO

Yes, we do.

ReynardMuldrake
09-22-2011, 03:31 PM
tl;dr

But I doubt we have any device that can measure the velocity or speed of anything traveling that fast.

Why not?

suds79
09-22-2011, 03:32 PM
Interesting story.

Wish I could remember the story a few months back.

Basically I'm gathering that the more we look at things, it seems the more there's out there we have no idea of how it works.

chasedude
09-22-2011, 03:32 PM
I'm from K-Pax and we can travel multiple times faster than C.

Pants
09-22-2011, 03:34 PM
HOLY SHIT IF TRUE

Donger
09-22-2011, 03:35 PM
HOLY SHIT IF TRUE

Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

Crush
09-22-2011, 03:35 PM
Yes, but can these sub-atomic particles travel faster than the Speed of Love?

WhiteWhale
09-22-2011, 03:36 PM
Such an age of discovery we live in. I can't wait to see where this goes...

Buck
09-22-2011, 03:40 PM
Ok I read it.

I remember as a kid watching some movie in school about relativity and how the further away from Earth you are (or the speed you are moving...cant remember), the less time it takes to live in the same moment. Theoretically you could go travel space for a year, come back, and time would have advanced 5 years on Earth. I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

Pants
09-22-2011, 03:43 PM
Ok I read it.

I remember as a kid watching some movie in school about relativity and how the further away from Earth you are (or the speed you are moving...cant remember), the less time it takes to live in the same moment. Theoretically you could go travel space for a year, come back, and time would have advanced 5 years on Earth. I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

Are you trolling?

BigCatDaddy
09-22-2011, 03:45 PM
Science wrong? Color me surprised :rolleyes:

blaise
09-22-2011, 03:46 PM
Yeah, Einstein, you fucking dumbass.

Donger
09-22-2011, 03:47 PM
Ok I read it.

I remember as a kid watching some movie in school about relativity and how the further away from Earth you are (or the speed you are moving...cant remember), the less time it takes to live in the same moment. Theoretically you could go travel space for a year, come back, and time would have advanced 5 years on Earth. I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

You damned, dirty ape!

Donger
09-22-2011, 03:47 PM
Yeah, Einstein, you ****ing dumbass. / Frankie

FYP

Buck
09-22-2011, 03:48 PM
Are you trolling?

No....I'm not very well schooled in Physics, but it really fascinates me.

So lets say we shoot off these neutrinos at or near the speed of light towards the sensor. As they move away from us, they appear to be traveling faster than they are. They actually were only going the speed of light....

Fuck it, I have no idea to convey what I want to get across, I just don't really believe anything can go faster than the speed of light.

blaise
09-22-2011, 03:49 PM
Make it so.

Donger
09-22-2011, 03:51 PM
No....I'm not very well schooled in Physics, but it really fascinates me.

So lets say we shoot off these neutrinos at or near the speed of light towards the sensor. As they move away from us, they appear to be traveling faster than they are. They actually were only going the speed of light....

**** it, I have no idea to convey what I want to get across, I just don't really believe anything can go faster than the speed of light.

:spock:

SNR
09-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Ok I read it.

I remember as a kid watching some movie in school about relativity and how the further away from Earth you are (or the speed you are moving...cant remember), the less time it takes to live in the same moment. Theoretically you could go travel space for a year, come back, and time would have advanced 5 years on Earth. I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?It's called time dilation. And it happens only at measurable speeds in comparison to the speed of light (example .5c)

Well, it happens all the time, but it's just not noticeable or worth calculating.

WhiteWhale
09-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Science wrong? Color me surprised :rolleyes:
Yeah, science is stupid.

I hate electronics, refrigeration, sanitation, and medical technology.

blaise
09-22-2011, 03:52 PM
Yeah, science is gay.

Detoxing
09-22-2011, 03:52 PM
Until Science can create a life like sex robot, I am unimpressed.

WV
09-22-2011, 03:53 PM
Scientists disprove Einstein and freaking Cassel can't complete a 15yd out.....Mind boggling!

The_Doctor10
09-22-2011, 03:54 PM
Science wrong? Color me surprised :rolleyes:

You realize of course that science is all about making mistakes and challenging the way we perceive our universe, right? There can't be any discovery if we assume we already know everything.

Science rarely if ever deals in absolutes. It's why a physics course called Atomic Theory will always be called Atomic Theory and not Atomic Fact. Science admits when it's wrong, because that's kinda the point of the whole enterprise.

blaise
09-22-2011, 03:54 PM
I wish someone would put a hat on Stephen Hawking that said, "Git R Dun" or "Judas Priest" or something and he drove around with it on, and didn't know.

Detoxing
09-22-2011, 03:56 PM
Science admits when it's wrong...

Unlike Religion **Cough Cough**


Off to D.C We go!!!

BigCatDaddy
09-22-2011, 03:56 PM
Yeah, science is stupid.

I hate electronics, refrigeration, sanitation, and medical technology.

Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do. Next thing we know the Theory of Gravity will no longer be a theory.

Frankie
09-22-2011, 03:56 PM
An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe.

Yeah, Einstein, you ****ing dumbass.

Meh, Einstein only had an IQ of 160.

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 03:56 PM
I remember when people said Jonathan Hayes was fast.

SNR
09-22-2011, 04:01 PM
I wish someone would put a hat on Stephen Hawking that said, "Git R Dun" or "Judas Priest" or something and he drove around with it on, and didn't know.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mg8_cKxJZJY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
09-22-2011, 04:01 PM
Meh, Einstein only had an IQ of 160.

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html

LMAO

Good for you, Frankie. Good for you.

gblowfish
09-22-2011, 04:03 PM
OK, so in high school chemistry when I said in a quiz essay "Einstein was a total tool" I shouldn't have got an "F"???

My life as a scientist was forever ruined.

I'm suing the Kansas City Public School System.

Do they have any money????

T-post Tom
09-22-2011, 04:05 PM
In a related story, a new study at the CASSEL Research Institute show that sub-atomic particles of SUCK are emanating from One Arrowhead Drive at speeds more than a thousand times faster than the speed of light.

evolve27
09-22-2011, 04:09 PM
I was driving to the Denver airport and I saw what looked like a piece of debris shoot out of the sky downward. I was trying to find online if someone had spotted anything. Im sure it was space debris. And no it wasn't Knowshon Moreno putting on dazzling performance :-/.

SNR
09-22-2011, 04:10 PM
In a related story, a new study at the CASSEL Research Institute show that sub-atomic particles of SUCK are emanating from One Arrowhead Drive at speeds more than a thousand times faster than the speed of light.
If we could just protect the suck particles better, they wouldn't decay their environment so much /true fans

mikey23545
09-22-2011, 04:19 PM
Fascinating...

blaise
09-22-2011, 04:22 PM
I like how the scientist says everyone should be prudent about this.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2011, 04:30 PM
I like how the scientist says everyone should be prudent about this.

We should be prudent in all things.

GordonGekko
09-22-2011, 04:36 PM
I'd love for this to be true.

The speed of light/speed of information barriers casts a dark light on future exploration of the universe.

scorpio
09-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Next thing we know the Theory of Gravity will no longer be a theory.

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

-King-
09-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do.

What is your point exactly?

Next thing we know the Theory of Gravity will no longer be a theory.

And...I...uh...I.... ROFL ROFL Wow

jAZ
09-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Science wrong? Color me surprised :rolleyes:

Scientists spend their careers trying to knock holes in the established theories. That's culture is to foster finding wrong answers and replacing them with better answers.

Entrepreneurship is the same way.

We could use more of a culture of championing failures. We'd be a lot better off if it was ok to make mistakes. It's how you learn and improve.

Fried Meat Ball!
09-22-2011, 05:03 PM
Without lamps, there'd be no light.

Groves
09-22-2011, 05:11 PM
Interesting. I think we went from Division winner to much suckitude in about 60nanoseconds, also.

Saulbadguy
09-22-2011, 05:16 PM
Why is the speed of light the measuring stick? I mean, duh, obviously there are things faster than it we have yet to encounter.

Lonewolf Ed
09-22-2011, 05:29 PM
Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

Yep. That's the thing about theories... they look great until disproven. But look at the value in discovering that the theory may be wrong. Now, we may find a host of new discoveries knowing where to look for them.

DaFace
09-22-2011, 05:38 PM
http://planet-quacksilver-forums.1049324.n5.nabble.com/file/n4366230/keanu-reeves-whoa.jpg

Reaper16
09-22-2011, 05:38 PM
Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do.
No shit. That's why we still have science.

blaise
09-22-2011, 05:41 PM
Without lamps, there'd be no light.

I'm a genius because I can't build a lamp.

Extra Point
09-22-2011, 05:45 PM
I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?
Ask Meg in the episode of "Family Guy," where her face melts.

WhiteWhale
09-22-2011, 05:53 PM
Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do. Next thing we know the Theory of Gravity will no longer be a theory.

LMAO

What is your point? That science is ever discovering new things at an amazing and exciting pace? You'd be correct. Science is wonderful.

You mock science for being wrong, I get excited by something that opens a LOT of doors for mankind. As I said, this is an amazing age of discovery. You should embrace it.

WhiteWhale
09-22-2011, 05:54 PM
Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

Well,Maxwell came up with the theory first.

Pants
09-22-2011, 05:56 PM
Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do.

So since we don't know nearly as much as we think we do, we should stop seeking knowledge?

BRAVO! :clap:

Extra Point
09-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Well,Maxwell came up with the theory first.

And, since the introduction of complex numbers, we are still challenged, to consolidate Newton's and his equations.

ClevelandBronco
09-22-2011, 06:08 PM
Meh, Einstein only had an IQ of 160.

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html

That one extra point must be the most important one, because no one's going to remember you even existed.

Ugly Duck
09-22-2011, 06:49 PM
Scientists spend their careers trying to knock holes in the established theories. That's culture is to foster finding wrong answers and replacing them with better answers.

Entrepreneurship is the same way.



Is the same true for Christianity?

"Bob" Dobbs
09-22-2011, 07:00 PM
So the Theory of Relativity was wrong? I bet those folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are glad they aren't really dead.
Posted via Mobile Device

Fish
09-22-2011, 07:20 PM
So the Theory of Relativity was wrong?

Not wrong... just incomplete..

And Einstein predicted as much. He was never content with his Theory of Relativity, and he always felt it was incomplete. He spent quite a bit of time searching for the next step, the Theory of Everything that would explain away the things he struggled with concerning his own theory.

But that's the brilliance of science as a whole. It's so self disciplined that it's always a work in progress. Ever evolving along with our understanding and discovery. So that it's constantly improved.

FAX
09-22-2011, 07:41 PM
Maybe I dreamed this or maybe I was visited by the ghost of Herman Melville's brother Mel during an overdose event, but I thought that Max Planck's quantum mechanics theories had predicted this some time ago ... like say ... in the early 1900's or so. I seem to recall that, before they started jamming together, he called Einstein an ugly goober.

More recently, the whole concept of quantum disentanglement leads one to believe that the "speed of light" is not an impassible threshold since information between particles can be passed instantly over enormous distances.

FAX THE SCIENTIST DUDE

lostcause
09-22-2011, 07:45 PM
I think it is incorrect of the article to say that this finding (if true) undermines the special theory of relativity. By expanding the capabilities of the universe to exceed that theory in highly specialized environments only show it is merely limited, not that it is inherently wrong.

It's like saying relativity undermined copernicus's theory of gravity - when all it did was expand upon it and take it to a new level.

Btw - fantastic if true.

Fish
09-22-2011, 07:55 PM
I've always felt that it was silly of us to think that in our current brief stage of evolution, that we could say with any confidence that "c" or any other figure, was the absolute fastest possible speed in the universe.

We have so much to learn... I'm just glad we're seeing so much cool shit during our lifetimes...

Rain Man
09-22-2011, 08:01 PM
We had the speed of sound, and then we had the speed of light. Next up: the speed of smell.

notorious
09-22-2011, 08:03 PM
We had the speed of sound, and then we had the speed of light. Next up: the speed of smell.

Insta-stink FTW!

FAX
09-22-2011, 08:09 PM
I've always considered it interesting that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is just that ... a "theory".

A theory is, essentially, a belief or a supposition. The more plausible the "theory", the more generally accepted it is, of course. But, so far as I know, the scientific community never referred to it as Einstein's Fact Of Relativity.

FAX

notorious
09-22-2011, 08:10 PM
I believe that we will figure out how to travel faster then light without the use of wormholes someday.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244891&highlight=speed+of+light

This is it!


Thread is a good read.

threebag02
09-22-2011, 08:38 PM
Yes, but can these sub-atomic particles travel faster than the Speed of Love?

Depends if GoChiefs is pumping you the love

4th and Long
09-22-2011, 09:44 PM
Yeah, Einstein, you ****ing dumbass.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Einstein_tongue.jpg

http://rubystuff.org/ludicrous/chicken.jpg
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to nutrino speed!!!
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3443/sbev.jpg

Simply Red
09-22-2011, 09:52 PM
Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

WE GOT GOD UP IN DIS MOTHA FUCKA!

Dave Lane
09-22-2011, 10:09 PM
We should be prudent in all things.

Its like a black fly in your Chardonnay...

aturnis
09-22-2011, 10:23 PM
How many of Einstein's law are still holding up? This isn't his first that's been debunked.

scorpio
09-22-2011, 10:47 PM
I've always considered it interesting that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is just that ... a "theory".

A theory is, essentially, a belief or a supposition. The more plausible the "theory", the more generally accepted it is, of course. But, so far as I know, the scientific community never referred to it as Einstein's Fact Of Relativity.

FAX

FAX, you seem like a good guy. But this is a dumb post.

Not because it's wrong, but because you are stating the obvious.

Frankie
09-22-2011, 10:56 PM
FAX, you seem like a good guy. But this is a dumb post.

Not because it's wrong, but because you are stating the obvious.

Ooops, n00b insults the legend.
:popcorn:

FAX
09-22-2011, 11:28 PM
FAX, you seem like a good guy. But this is a dumb post.

Not because it's wrong, but because you are stating the obvious.

Years ago, Mr. scorpio, when I was a mere N00b (sp?), I not only learned that William Carlos Williams was certifiably insane and a person whose work should be avoided at all costs, I also became acutely aware that stating the obvious is often necessary here on ChiefsPlanet. As I matured as a poster, I later came to realize that some people suffer from such severe, singular, one-dimensional thinking that they cannot see beyond the literal wording of each post they read. These are the posters, by the way, who tend to kill conversation while adding nothing to the discussion themselves.

With that in mind, please allow me to elaborate on my prior comment;

The scientific community (as I'm sure you are aware) have universally accepted Einstein's "theories" (both special and general) as a sort of gold standard in physics. It is taught as fundamental truth in most schools and physicists who have followed Einstein have sought to build upon his work.

Not only that, it's probably safe to say that, over the last 90 or so years, most assumptions made involving particle research, electrodynamics, cosmology, etc. are essentially based upon the "theory". This is due, no doubt, to the "fact" that, according to Einstein himself, the mathematics supporting relativity allow for no deviation. None. And this "fact" has been generally assumed by the scientific community since Einstein published.

Were this not the case, thoughtful persons would neither be shocked nor surprised to learn that the bases of the "theory" can be proven false.

To make it even clearer (hopefully), when or if Einstein is ultimately found to be wrong, much of the research which flowed from his "theory" is little more than a glass house built upon a glass foundation inhabited by glassholes not unlike yourself.

FAX

CrazyPhuD
09-22-2011, 11:30 PM
I totally believe it. I've witnessed particles exceeding the speed of light personally, although it usually happens after eating a burrito from a particular taco truck.

Frankie
09-22-2011, 11:50 PM
As I matured as a poster, I later came to realize that some people suffer from such severe, singular, one-dimensional thinking that they cannot see beyond the literal wording of each post they read.

FAX

Perfectly put. God almighty,.... SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!!! :clap:

listopencil
09-23-2011, 12:36 AM
No....I'm not very well schooled in Physics, but it really fascinates me.

So lets say we shoot off these neutrinos at or near the speed of light towards the sensor. As they move away from us, they appear to be traveling faster than they are. They actually were only going the speed of light....

Fuck it, I have no idea to convey what I want to get across, I just don't really believe anything can go faster than the speed of light.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. It's backwards and it doesn't apply though.

BigCatDaddy
09-23-2011, 07:27 AM
Years ago, Mr. scorpio, when I was a mere N00b (sp?), I not only learned that William Carlos Williams was certifiably insane and a person whose work should be avoided at all costs, I also became acutely aware that stating the obvious is often necessary here on ChiefsPlanet. As I matured as a poster, I later came to realize that some people suffer from such severe, singular, one-dimensional thinking that they cannot see beyond the literal wording of each post they read. These are the posters, by the way, who tend to kill conversation while adding nothing to the discussion themselves.

With that in mind, please allow me to elaborate on my prior comment;

The scientific community (as I'm sure you are aware) have universally accepted Einstein's "theories" (both special and general) as a sort of gold standard in physics. It is taught as fundamental truth in most schools and physicists who have followed Einstein have sought to build upon his work.

Not only that, it's probably safe to say that, over the last 90 or so years, most assumptions made involving particle research, electrodynamics, cosmology, etc. are essentially based upon the "theory". This is due, no doubt, to the "fact" that, according to Einstein himself, the mathematics supporting relativity allow for no deviation. None. And this "fact" has been generally assumed by the scientific community since Einstein published.

Were this not the case, thoughtful persons would neither be shocked nor surprised to learn that the bases of the "theory" can be proven false.

To make it even clearer (hopefully), when or if Einstein is ultimately found to be wrong, much of the research which flowed from his "theory" is little more than a glass house built upon a glass foundation inhabited by glassholes not unlike yourself.

FAX


Word.

BigCatDaddy
09-23-2011, 07:30 AM
Still trying to wrap my head around this.

Cross thread humor.

BigCatDaddy
09-23-2011, 07:32 AM
So since we don't know nearly as much as we think we do, we should stop seeking knowledge?

BRAVO! :clap:

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Otter
09-23-2011, 07:32 AM
Men that encountered Denise.

notorious
09-23-2011, 07:34 AM
Why doesn't light keep it's relative speed with nutrinos like it does with everything else?


That is the question I want answered. Could the nutrinos partially be in another dimension, thus they do not go my our universe's rules?

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 08:22 AM
I've always considered it interesting that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is just that ... a "theory".

A theory is, essentially, a belief or a supposition. The more plausible the "theory", the more generally accepted it is, of course. But, so far as I know, the scientific community never referred to it as Einstein's Fact Of Relativity.

FAX


The Theory of Christianity?

It has a certain cache I think.

FAX
09-23-2011, 08:56 AM
The Theory of Christianity?

It has a certain cache I think.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I've been delving into the whole creation/evolution debate lately. It's pretty interesting if you look at the question in a fully objective frame of mind. There are so many aspects of human existence that remain open to debate.

Science is constantly "advancing". This means, of course, that, as time goes on, what we once believed as fact is, at some point, no longer found to be true. That provides very little comfort that "science" actually knows a whole heck of a lot about anything ... at any given point in time, I mean.

FAX THE PROBABLY NEEDS TO SMOKE A DOOBIE

topher79
09-23-2011, 09:10 AM
Not to be a complete dork but faster than light particles, called tachyons, have been theorized for quite some time. Also, particles traveling faster than light to a distant observer, as in this experiment, does not violate the general theory of relativity or any other physical law. In fact it's the basic premise behind wormholes. The experimental results from the article sound intriguing but the article should've stopped there.

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 09:24 AM
"Journalists sometimes say that scientists have to go back to the drawing board. What do they think, that we just put our feet up, and decide we have figured things out? We are ALWAYS at the drawing board."

Neil deGrasse Tyson

gblowfish
09-23-2011, 09:28 AM
If you were in a car, traveling faster than the speed of light, and you turned on the headlights, what would happen???

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 09:30 AM
Youtube has some great videos that might be interesting to you in this debate.

DarkMatter2525
Philhellenes
thunderf00t
Theatheistexperience

Cool stuff. Kinda sciencey without going overboard.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I've been delving into the whole creation/evolution debate lately. It's pretty interesting if you look at the question in a fully objective frame of mind. There are so many aspects of human existence that remain open to debate.

Science is constantly "advancing". This means, of course, that, as time goes on, what we once believed as fact is, at some point, no longer found to be true. That provides very little comfort that "science" actually knows a whole heck of a lot about anything ... at any given point in time, I mean.

FAX THE PROBABLY NEEDS TO SMOKE A DOOBIE

Dave Lane
09-23-2011, 09:41 AM
Heres a serious look at part of the debate LMAO

NSFW language...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jMYIl5b-paY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jive Ass
09-23-2011, 09:42 AM
If confirmed, I guess it's time to redevelop the special theory of relativity. Should be pretty easy, right?

Pants
09-23-2011, 09:55 AM
If confirmed, I guess it's time to redevelop the special theory of relativity. Should be pretty easy, right?

Only for Frankie. Not so much for the rest of us.

FAX
09-23-2011, 11:33 AM
Not to be a complete dork but faster than light particles, called tachyons, have been theorized for quite some time. Also, particles traveling faster than light to a distant observer, as in this experiment, does not violate the general theory of relativity or any other physical law. In fact it's the basic premise behind wormholes. The experimental results from the article sound intriguing but the article should've stopped there.

It's a scientific fact that midgets smell funny. However, if a midget falls into a sewer, he smells even worse. What difference does it make "how" the midget got into the sewer? The result is the same. Stinky midget.

The same principle applies to particles. If, say, a particle goes from point A to point B via a wormhole faster than the particle would have otherwise traveled in normal space and the "speed of light" threshold is broken, it doesn't matter what path the particle took, the result is faster-than-light travel. That's what Scotty says, anyhow.

FAX

Halfcan
09-23-2011, 11:41 AM
Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

Well he didnt have any fancy equipment either-lol

Frankie
09-23-2011, 11:53 AM
If confirmed, I guess it's time to redevelop the special theory of relativity. Should be pretty easy, right?

The new Theory of Relativity:

If relatives show up unexpectedly at your door the number of days they will stay is directly a function of the hints (squared) that you produce.

Here's the formula:

RD = 1/H2

R = Number of relatives
D = Days they will stay
H = Number of hints

Halfcan
09-23-2011, 12:53 PM
The only thing that seems to move fast than those sub atomic particles is the Chiefs season down the drain.

WhiteWhale
09-23-2011, 02:39 PM
Years ago, Mr. scorpio, when I was a mere N00b (sp?), I not only learned that William Carlos Williams was certifiably insane and a person whose work should be avoided at all costs, I also became acutely aware that stating the obvious is often necessary here on ChiefsPlanet. As I matured as a poster, I later came to realize that some people suffer from such severe, singular, one-dimensional thinking that they cannot see beyond the literal wording of each post they read. These are the posters, by the way, who tend to kill conversation while adding nothing to the discussion themselves.

With that in mind, please allow me to elaborate on my prior comment;

The scientific community (as I'm sure you are aware) have universally accepted Einstein's "theories" (both special and general) as a sort of gold standard in physics. It is taught as fundamental truth in most schools and physicists who have followed Einstein have sought to build upon his work.

Not only that, it's probably safe to say that, over the last 90 or so years, most assumptions made involving particle research, electrodynamics, cosmology, etc. are essentially based upon the "theory". This is due, no doubt, to the "fact" that, according to Einstein himself, the mathematics supporting relativity allow for no deviation. None. And this "fact" has been generally assumed by the scientific community since Einstein published.

Were this not the case, thoughtful persons would neither be shocked nor surprised to learn that the bases of the "theory" can be proven false.

To make it even clearer (hopefully), when or if Einstein is ultimately found to be wrong, much of the research which flowed from his "theory" is little more than a glass house built upon a glass foundation inhabited by glassholes not unlike yourself.

FAX

I'm not sure you can say that when you look at all the practical technology that is only possible because of the theory. Everything from computers to atomic explosions. These things are far more than glass houses... they're practical examples of his theory.

One day we will find (as we have done dozens of times) that our current evolutionary theory has mistakes. That does not make all of the previous work irrelevant in any way. It simply brings us closer to a complete truth.

Nothing Einstein did is a glass house... it's only because of his theory that we have tests challenging it. As I'm sure you're aware. If you pull one straw from a scientific theory it doesn't crumble into uselessness, it simply brings us closer to the truth.

</post>
09-23-2011, 02:45 PM
http://i.imgur.com/MR9Fa.jpg

WhiteWhale
09-23-2011, 02:47 PM
Also, everytime I hear about Cern I feel like making a John Titor joke.

Fish
09-23-2011, 02:51 PM
It looks like this is being treated with incredible skepticism by the scientific community so far. Lots of harsh criticism....

This article gives some better insight and some funny responses from other scientists...

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/sep/23/1

Excerpt:

Why so much scepticism? Carl Sagan once said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If your experiment seems to break the laws of physics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/physics), then the prior probability of the result is so tiny that you're more likely to have made a mistake than a new discovery, and you're going to have to work hard to convince people otherwise. The claims being made here are certainly in that category. As Nature put it (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html):"If neutrinos are travelling faster than light speed, then one of the most fundamental assumptions of science — that the rules of physics are the same for all observers — would be invalidated. "
Extraordinary claims indeed, but while they could be true there's little substance behind them so far. The evidence is a single, tentative finding, contradicted by other observations of neutrinos which have failed to see the same effect. The work has yet to be properly published or peer reviewed, let alone scrutinized or replicated by the scientific community. At the time the Reuters report appeared, the researchers hadn't even uploaded their draft paper to Arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1), the pre-print repository. We don't know if the claim is true or not, but we know that if it is, it needs more substantial evidence behind it.

Fish
09-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Ha...

http://twitter.com/#!/jimalkhalili/status/117160630527594496

@jimalkhalili (http://twitter.com/#%21/jimalkhalili) Jim Al-Khalili
Right, if the CERN experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV.

FAX
09-23-2011, 10:44 PM
I'm not sure you can say that when you look at all the practical technology that is only possible because of the theory. Everything from computers to atomic explosions. These things are far more than glass houses... they're practical examples of his theory.

One day we will find (as we have done dozens of times) that our current evolutionary theory has mistakes. That does not make all of the previous work irrelevant in any way. It simply brings us closer to a complete truth.

Nothing Einstein did is a glass house... it's only because of his theory that we have tests challenging it. As I'm sure you're aware. If you pull one straw from a scientific theory it doesn't crumble into uselessness, it simply brings us closer to the truth.

What's happened to this place lately? It's like a jungle in here. A midget eat midget environment where only the most obtuse can survive.

Uhhh ... I can only assume that this post is referring to the section you highlighted, Mr. WhiteWhale. If so, please note the use of the terms "if" and "much" and word things like that.

As for your point (as I think I understand it), sure ... they physical sciences have progressed in many ways over the past century and much of that progress is based, in part, on Einstein's work. Then again, we have yet to develop a warp drive (or, at least, the government hasn't told us about it).

I believe, though, that in 500 years or so, the science of matter and energy as we currently understand it will have evolved to such a degree that, looking back, our current scientific "beliefs" and "principles" will appear almost as a kind of entheomania.

Another way of looking at it is this; the "progress" of or "advances" in science are admissions that prior "truths" were, in fact, somewhat untrue or ... as you say, incomplete. As new information emerges, the baby doesn't always go out with the bathwater, but on the other hand, sometimes it actually does.

Of course, I also think it's unlikely that ancient Egyptians built an earthen ramp big enough to haul megalithic stones 400 feet into the air.

FAX

alnorth
09-23-2011, 11:06 PM
I'd love for this to be true.

The speed of light/speed of information barriers casts a dark light on future exploration of the universe.

Agreed. We'll all be long dead before it becomes relevant, but if the speed of light cant be broken, then the only way we'll ever explore and colonize other solar systems will be by using generation ships where people are born, live, and die in the ship. The problem with that approach is that 4 generations in some idiot will gather some idiot followers, fight a coup or something, and inadvertently blow the ship up.

That, or maybe we perfect the ability to cryogenically freeze and reanimate people without any harm.

Either way there are other issues though even if you assume we find lots of planets in habitable zones that can be settled. Without the ability to stay in communication, each "colony" or whatever you call it will evolve with vastly different beliefs and philosophies to the point where if you ever do encounter another group of people who have been cut off from earth thousands of years, they may have forgotten their roots and see you as an enemy.

Cant have vast sci-fi space civilizations without FTL travel and information.

FAX
09-23-2011, 11:07 PM
What if we do the generation ship deal and say ... oh ... about 3 generations in, the people forget where they were supposed to go and decide to turn around?

What happens then?

FAX

FAX
09-23-2011, 11:19 PM
What if we build a generation ship and send it off to a planetary system say ... 200 light years away and just as they arrive, the star explodes? That would suck.

Also, why didn't they have teleporters in Star Wars like they did in Star Trek? And why didn't the Federation just set up teleporters all over the galaxy instead of using ships to travel around? Is there a limit to how far a teleporter can work? And, why didn't they teleport food and clothing and things onto the ship instead of having to stop for supplies? And couldn't the teleporter operator teleport chicks from a planet and force them to have sex under threat of teleporting their ass into deep space?

FAX

listopencil
09-23-2011, 11:39 PM
What if we do the generation ship deal and say ... oh ... about 3 generations in, the people forget where they were supposed to go and decide to turn around?

What happens then?

FAX


...or what if the trip takes so long that the society contained in the vessel breaks down? Perhaps they come to believe that the ship is the universe and nothing exists outside of it, that astrogation books are simply religious texts meant to provide moral guidance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphans_of_the_Sky

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4045426597_4152060c79.jpg

FAX
09-24-2011, 12:33 AM
Or what if, due to some form of bizarre space radiation, each succeeding generation is born smaller than the previous one until a generation emerges of teeny, tiny, little people who are the most midgetry of all midgets and their fingers are so itsy that they can no longer operate the ship's control systems then the ship's Roomba starts cleaning up one day and sucks all those little bastards up and they're all just kind of squirming around inside the Roomba all jammed in there when one of them has to release some tiny flatulence which, to them, because they're small, seems like normal flatulence and this sets off the ship's security system which was originally designed to automatically eliminate any potentially dangerous space viruses or space spores and special gas starts pumping out of the air conditioning vents which causes all the tiny space explorers to choke and die?

FAX

ChiefsNow
09-24-2011, 03:52 AM
Or what if, due to some form of bizarre space radiation, each succeeding generation is born smaller than the previous one until a generation emerges of teeny, tiny, little people who are the most midgetry of all midgets and their fingers are so itsy that they can no longer operate the ship's control systems then the ship's Roomba starts cleaning up one day and sucks all those little bastards up and they're all just kind of squirming around inside the Roomba all jammed in there when one of them has to release some tiny flatulence which, to them, because they're small, seems like normal flatulence and this sets off the ship's security system which was originally designed to automatically eliminate any potentially dangerous space viruses or space spores and special gas starts pumping out of the air conditioning vents which causes all the tiny space explorers to choke and die?

FAX

If Heppa filters are installed, they will be safe.

Brainiac
09-24-2011, 07:49 AM
Years ago, Mr. scorpio, when I was a mere N00b (sp?), I not only learned that William Carlos Williams was certifiably insane and a person whose work should be avoided at all costs, I also became acutely aware that stating the obvious is often necessary here on ChiefsPlanet. As I matured as a poster, I later came to realize that some people suffer from such severe, singular, one-dimensional thinking that they cannot see beyond the literal wording of each post they read. These are the posters, by the way, who tend to kill conversation while adding nothing to the discussion themselves.

With that in mind, please allow me to elaborate on my prior comment;

The scientific community (as I'm sure you are aware) have universally accepted Einstein's "theories" (both special and general) as a sort of gold standard in physics. It is taught as fundamental truth in most schools and physicists who have followed Einstein have sought to build upon his work.

Not only that, it's probably safe to say that, over the last 90 or so years, most assumptions made involving particle research, electrodynamics, cosmology, etc. are essentially based upon the "theory". This is due, no doubt, to the "fact" that, according to Einstein himself, the mathematics supporting relativity allow for no deviation. None. And this "fact" has been generally assumed by the scientific community since Einstein published.

Were this not the case, thoughtful persons would neither be shocked nor surprised to learn that the bases of the "theory" can be proven false.

To make it even clearer (hopefully), when or if Einstein is ultimately found to be wrong, much of the research which flowed from his "theory" is little more than a glass house built upon a glass foundation inhabited by glassholes not unlike yourself.

FAX

I think Stephen Jay Gould put it the best: "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."

It's ridiculous to state that Einstein will ultimately found to be wrong. He got a helluva lot of things right. All of the modern technologies that have been developed based upon his theories are evidence of that (as you pointed out).

If Einstein were still alive he would embrace this new data (if true) and use it to expand, modify, or completely replace his original theory. That doesn't make his original theory wrong. As previously stated in this thread, it is simply incomplete. However, it is pretty f*cking awesome based upon the data he had available to him at the time.

notorious
09-24-2011, 07:58 AM
I think Stephen Jay Gould put it the best: "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."

It's ridiculous to state that Einstein will ultimately found to be wrong. He got a helluva lot of things right. All of the modern technologies that have been developed based upon his theories are evidence of that (as you pointed out).

If Einstein were still alive he would embrace this new data (if true) and use it to expand, modify, or completely replace his original theory. That doesn't make his original theory wrong. As previously stated in this thread, it is simply incomplete. However, it is pretty f*cking awesome based upon the data he had available to him at the time.

This.

WhiteWhale
09-24-2011, 09:02 AM
I think Stephen Jay Gould put it the best: "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."

It's ridiculous to state that Einstein will ultimately found to be wrong. He got a helluva lot of things right. All of the modern technologies that have been developed based upon his theories are evidence of that (as you pointed out).

If Einstein were still alive he would embrace this new data (if true) and use it to expand, modify, or completely replace his original theory. That doesn't make his original theory wrong. As previously stated in this thread, it is simply incomplete. However, it is pretty f*cking awesome based upon the data he had available to him at the time.

Thank you. This is essentially what I was trying to communicate, but was clearly unable.

I do not feel that this viewpoint makes me obtuse, but perhaps FAX has another definition of obtuse that I myself have never discovered.

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 09:08 AM
I've always considered it interesting that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is just that ... a "theory".

A theory is, essentially, a belief or a supposition. The more plausible the "theory", the more generally accepted it is, of course. But, so far as I know, the scientific community never referred to it as Einstein's Fact Of Relativity.

FAX

what the public hears when they hear the word 'theory' and what scientists hears when they hear the word 'theory' are different entities.

WhiteWhale
09-24-2011, 09:13 AM
what the public hears when they hear the word 'theory' and what a scientist hears when he hear the word 'theory' are different entities.

Yes, a theory and a scientific theory are not the same.

Scientific theories are built upon the scientific method. Other theories are just basically guesses.

ChiefsNow
09-24-2011, 09:17 AM
Is Theory just a theory??

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 09:21 AM
a scientific theory has several hallmarks: among them are the ability to be falsified and to make predictions that are verifiable when more data is gathered.

DaKCMan AP
09-24-2011, 09:22 AM
The potential is limitless..


;)

Frankie
09-24-2011, 10:27 AM
a scientific theory has several hallmarks: among them are the ability to be falsified and to make predictions that are verifiable when more data is gathered.A bit sidetracked from the main subject here, but judging by your past posts this looks like a thinly veiled attempt at denying global warming.

Are you enjoying the nice, calm, Fall weather?

FAX
09-24-2011, 10:27 AM
Thank you. This is essentially what I was trying to communicate, but was clearly unable.

I do not feel that this viewpoint makes me obtuse, but perhaps FAX has another definition of obtuse that I myself have never discovered.

I was tired of arguing last night, Mr. WhiteWhale, and just wanted to talk about space travelers who develop telepathy and banana-peel-based ass fungus.

The problem is that I don't think I'm as far off base as some of you guys seem to imply. It's as though you're reading from textbooks. I'm vamping here ... even though, I can kick a scientists ass half drunk ... if I have a 2X4, that is.

It's true that Einstein's relativity is predicated on mathematics that have, for the most part, stood the test of time and experience. As for the physical "laws" the theories postulate, some can be proven outright and some cannot ... at least not yet. His prediction that light can "bend" under the influence of gravitational fields, for example, has been demonstrated to be extraordinarily accurate.

I just think that science gets sort of ... "stuck on itself". People are now quoting dead people who are unable to evaluate new data because they are ... well ... dead. Or, at least, partially dead. To me, the idea behind "science" is to question things, nothing should be sacrosanct. Yet, one would think that, by challenging Einstein's ability to survive the discoveries associated with quantum research, for example, you've shot a puppy. If and when that happens, Einstein will be proven to have been imperfect ... apparently to the dismay of his fans who will gnash their teeth and rend their clothing in despair.

Generally speaking a scientific "law" allows for no exceptions. That's why the apple always falls. A scientific theory attempts to explain why the apple behaves in the way it does.

In the quantum world, however, the apple could behave quite differently. There could, for example, be an unlimited number of apples ... some of which fall and some of which attempt to gain access to Einstein's anus. There could be no apple at all ... only our conscious interpretation of physical information that we describe as an apple.

Let's look at Einstein's concept of a "cosmological constant" ...

He was right, then wrong, then maybe right again, then wrong once more ... simply based upon discoveries associated with the overall behavior of the universe as we perceive it. Yet, people initially accepted his "constant" on the basis of fairly straightforward equations dealing with mass density and vacuum energy ... among other things. Why? Because the math seemed to make sense and, after all, it was a "scientific theory" put forward by a great man.

For my part, I predict that the quantum world (which we have yet to understand and, in fact, may never fully comprehend) will continue to surprise us and introduce new truths that, eventually, will dwarf relativity in terms of both scope and application. Of course, that may take a thousand years.

FAX

Stewie
09-24-2011, 12:41 PM
That difference is so insignificant that it's probably a misunderstood test issue.

FAX
09-24-2011, 01:14 PM
You know, I was thinking about this and remembered that quantum entanglement created a real problem for Einstein and his buds since it violates causality (among other basic principles of relativity). They even called the phenomenon a "paradox" and published stating that, eventually, they or somebody would figure it out. If I remember correctly, that research was part of Einstein's effort to formulate a "theory of everything".

I think ... not sure about this ... but I think that Einstein believed at the time that, eventually, evidence would surface that proved entanglement to be a false observation or premise.

In fact, the exact opposite has happened and we have reasonable proof that particles can actually exchange information and other observable behavior "instantaneously" across space ... vast space. This would, unquestionably, screw with Einstein because it violates the speed of light limit.

Then, there's the whole "observer" phenomenon.

No, I think that it's very likely that, eventually, a great deal of Einstein's theory (scientific tho it may be) will require some adjustment and tinkering.

FAX THE OBSESSING A LITTLE NOW IT APPEARS

BossChief
09-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Ehh, just saying we don't know NEARLY as much as we think we do. Next thing we know the Theory of Gravity will no longer be a theory.

Well, the theory of "is bigcatdaddy a dumbass?" has finally been solved.

In theory, of course.

:p


...

As to the op...DAMN

ChiefsNow
09-24-2011, 02:30 PM
The theory of relatives are treated differently in the south .

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 05:35 PM
A bit sidetracked from the main subject here, but judging by your past posts this looks like a thinly veiled attempt at denying global warming.

Are you enjoying the nice, calm, Fall weather?

are you a fucking retard? oh wait, I know the answer to that.

no, my comment has NOTHING to do with global warming. it's a generalized statement that comes from the writing of one of my favorite theoretical physicists.

it's funny how little you know about science though, gholam.

Ugly Duck
09-24-2011, 05:47 PM
I've always considered it interesting that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is just that ... a "theory".

A theory is, essentially, a belief or a supposition. The more plausible the "theory", the more generally accepted it is, of course. But, so far as I know, the scientific community never referred to it as Einstein's Fact Of Relativity.

FAX

I know FAX has it down by now, but just in case anybody missed it:

In everyday use, "theory" means a belief or a supposition, something that maybe needs proof. Thats not the def of the word "Theory" in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. They call it the Theory of Electricity, not the Fact of Electricity.

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 06:14 PM
I know FAX has it down by now, but just in case anybody missed it:

In everyday use, "theory" means a belief or a supposition, something that maybe needs proof. Thats not the def of the word "Theory" in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. They call it the Theory of Electricity, not the Fact of Electricity.

precisely. to make it to theory territory, you have to have veritable mountains of data that back you up, you have to be based on the scientific method (thus, falsifiable), and have to be able to predict the outcome of new data that will come out within your theoretical construct.

Frankie
09-24-2011, 06:59 PM
are you a ****ing retard? oh wait, I know the answer to that.

no, my comment has NOTHING to do with global warming. it's a generalized statement that comes from the writing of one of my favorite theoretical physicists.

it's funny how little you know about science though, gholam.

Hope you are enjoying the nice calm Fall weather. Gholam does too.

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 07:10 PM
Hope you are enjoying the nice calm Fall weather. Gholam does too.

well, that's one thing we agree on. fall is by far my favorite season.

Frankie
09-24-2011, 07:26 PM
well, that's one thing we agree on. fall is by far my favorite season.

The weather is so calm isn't it?

Ebolapox
09-24-2011, 07:39 PM
The weather is so calm isn't it?

dude, your thin allusions to being my weatherman (whatever the fuck that means) are kinda old and tired.

Frankie
09-24-2011, 11:24 PM
dude, your thin allusions to being my weatherman (whatever the **** that means) are kinda old and tired.

Just asked if you are enjoying the calm weather. You are sure defensive.

Ugly Duck
09-25-2011, 12:14 AM
Just asked if you are enjoying the calm weather. You are sure defensive.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Nothing like having a fuggin evil streak....

L.A. Chieffan
09-25-2011, 01:51 AM
FUCK YOU SCIENCE

BossChief
09-25-2011, 04:48 AM
Damn, FAX just came in and kicked the shit out of this thread.

Well done!

Ebolapox
09-25-2011, 10:23 AM
Just asked if you are enjoying the calm weather. You are sure defensive.

this game is getting old and tired, so it's time to kick it back to where it used to be;

your mom is an old, crusty, skanky whore with old, musty, janky, oozing sores.

4th and Long
09-25-2011, 10:24 AM
Someone needs to change Frankie's user name to "Thread Wrecker."

Frankie
09-25-2011, 07:27 PM
this game is getting old and tired, so it's time to kick it back to where it used to be;

your mom is an old, crusty, skanky whore with old, musty, janky, oozing sores.

That's more like it. You are a funny comedian. I wonder if you are this funny live on the stage.

Frankie
09-25-2011, 07:29 PM
Someone needs to change Frankie's user name to "Thread Wrecker."

Meh, thread wrecking is a way of life on this BB now. I could give you a few links to illustrate my point, but I think you agree with me on this.

Pants
09-25-2011, 08:19 PM
Hey, Frankie, do you think if we have a hot summer or a mild winter, it's proof of Global Warming? LMAO

Buck
10-17-2011, 01:51 PM
Ok I read it.

I remember as a kid watching some movie in school about relativity and how the further away from Earth you are (or the speed you are moving...cant remember), the less time it takes to live in the same moment. Theoretically you could go travel space for a year, come back, and time would have advanced 5 years on Earth. I'm not sure what that is called, but I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

Well well well...

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/?ref=rss

jidar
10-17-2011, 02:48 PM
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I've been delving into the whole creation/evolution debate lately. It's pretty interesting if you look at the question in a fully objective frame of mind. There are so many aspects of human existence that remain open to debate.

Science is constantly "advancing". This means, of course, that, as time goes on, what we once believed as fact is, at some point, no longer found to be true. That provides very little comfort that "science" actually knows a whole heck of a lot about anything ... at any given point in time, I mean.

FAX THE PROBABLY NEEDS TO SMOKE A DOOBIE

The fact that science is fallible and open to change if experimentation proves some facet of it incorrect is precisely why it's the best explanation to follow.

jidar
10-17-2011, 02:55 PM
You know, I was thinking about this and remembered that quantum entanglement created a real problem for Einstein and his buds since it violates causality (among other basic principles of relativity). They even called the phenomenon a "paradox" and published stating that, eventually, they or somebody would figure it out. If I remember correctly, that research was part of Einstein's effort to formulate a "theory of everything".

I think ... not sure about this ... but I think that Einstein believed at the time that, eventually, evidence would surface that proved entanglement to be a false observation or premise.

In fact, the exact opposite has happened and we have reasonable proof that particles can actually exchange information and other observable behavior "instantaneously" across space ... vast space. This would, unquestionably, screw with Einstein because it violates the speed of light limit.

Then, there's the whole "observer" phenomenon.

No, I think that it's very likely that, eventually, a great deal of Einstein's theory (scientific tho it may be) will require some adjustment and tinkering.

FAX THE OBSESSING A LITTLE NOW IT APPEARS

Not really.

For every experiment that proves the standard model of particle physics is correct there is another one that proves relativity.
Also, the standard model doesn't have a usable model of gravity.
Meanwhile relativity was used to land on the moon and is the primary driver of nearly all cosmology. If relativity didn't work in the most basic sense, gps satellites wouldn't function.

The truth is that both quatum and relativity are just approximate models that describe different things about reality but are mostly incompatible with each other.
A grand unified theory that describes everything and makes those previous models obsolete
is the holy grail of physics, but make no mistake if it happens it wont be the case of one being correct and the other being incorrect, it's going to be both of them are deprecated by something totally new.

None of this means there is anything wrong with science btw, so you religious folks don't need to get all excited.
My money is on this whole experiment with faster than light neutrinos being a mistake.

Donger
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/18/test-confirms-particles-appear-to-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?hpt=hp_bn2

Test confirms particles appear to travel faster than the speed of light

(CNN) – Travel faster than the speed of light? Really?

Back in September, scientists found that tiny particles called neutrinos appeared to do just that, defying Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

It could be a fluke, but now the same experiment has replicated the result. It’s not hard proof yet, though; other groups still need to confirm these findings.

Physicists with the OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) experiment said in September that neutrinos sent about 454 miles (730 kilometers) from CERN in Switzerland arrived at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory a fraction of a second sooner than they should have according to Einstein’s theory.

Other scientists were skeptical, raising questions about possible flaws in the study.

So OPERA scientists rechecked parts of the experiment to take into account suggestions from their critics. They announced Friday that the new test confirms the initial findings.

“This result confirms that neutrinos arrived at Gran Sasso lab 62.1 nanoseconds in advance with respect to the time computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum,” according to Lucia Votano, director of INFN-Gran Sasso Laboratory.

The OPERA team's initial result was based on observing more than 15,000 bunches of neutrinos, or electrically neutral subatomic particles. But the scientists did not track any one specific neutrino. Instead, the neutrinos were produced in long pulses that lasted about 10 millionths of a second.

“Although this sounds short, it is hundreds of times longer than the 60 nanoseconds early arrival time of the neutrinos at the Gran Sasso in Italy,” said Andy Cohen, a professor of physics at Boston University, who is not involved in OPERA.

This means that when a neutrino arrived at Gran Sasso there was no way to know exactly when it was produced during the pulse, preventing an accurate measurement of its speed.

The new study used shorter pulses making it easier to know more precisely when an individual neutrino was generated.

“They did this for only 20 neutrinos,” Cohen said, “but since the speed of each one is known, this leads to a very precise result, confirming that the neutrinos appear to be arriving 60 nanoseconds earlier than expected.”

But don’t throw your physics book just yet. Cohen said there are other potential issues with the experiment that haven’t been addressed yet. “While this result is a very significant improvement over the previous measurement, many of the concerns that have been raised about possible sources of uncertainty remain.

“We should probably remain skeptical until we have confirmation from other experiments,” he said.

Votana agrees and said the OPERA measurement needs to be confirmed by independent scientists. Even if the results are confirmed, we won’t toss out all of Einstein’s theory. A broader theory would be generated that would include Einstein’s theory, Votana said.

Scientists at Fermilab in Illinois and in Japan are expected to try to replicate the findings.

“If the neutrinos are truly traveling faster than light this would require profound changes in the way we understand space and time,” Cohen said.

chefsos
11-21-2011, 11:05 AM
I think the neutrinos were wind-aided. Denied.

Dave Lane
11-21-2011, 11:15 AM
Anyone else thinking PEDs?

Spott
11-21-2011, 11:16 AM
Gas just went up 10 cents because of this.

Donger
11-21-2011, 11:23 AM
Anyone else thinking PEDs?

PED?

Ebolapox
11-21-2011, 11:24 AM
Anyone else thinking PEDs?

hey, sandusky said that he didn't do that shit!

FAX
11-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Oh, my God.

Einstein's theory ... defied? Is that what that says in that article deal up there? Einstein? Defied?

FAX

Pants
11-21-2011, 12:59 PM
PED?

Performance-enhancing drugs. Neutrinos were cheating.

Graystoke
11-21-2011, 01:00 PM
PED?

Performance Enhancing Drugs...aka Steroids etc....

tooge
11-21-2011, 01:08 PM
pretty soon we'll be calling people Einstein as an insult

Donger
11-21-2011, 01:10 PM
Performance-enhancing drugs. Neutrinos were cheating.

Neutrinos can't take drugs.

Graystoke
11-21-2011, 01:18 PM
Neutrinos can't take drugs.

No they can't.

But perhaps the particles could have moved backwards, through time in it's own time frame of reference, our frame of reference, or both, hence cheating its way to the line.

All the while doubting that if you moved back in time in your own frame of reference, AND in the frame of reference from which you were being measured, you wouldn't be any further ahead. I mean, any further behind.

FAX
11-21-2011, 01:18 PM
No they can't.

But perhaps the particles could have moved backwards, through time in it's own time frame of reference, our frame of reference, or both, hence cheating its way to the line.

All the while doubting that if you moved back in time in your own frame of reference, AND in the frame of reference from which you were being measured, you wouldn't be any further ahead. I mean, any further behind.

Good points, here.

Damn good.

FAX

Pants
11-21-2011, 02:15 PM
Neutrinos can't take drugs.

Yeah, I think that was a joke, Donger. Maybe Dave Lane meant something else by PEDs, I don't know.

Donger
11-21-2011, 02:21 PM
Yeah, I think that was a joke, Donger. Maybe Dave Lane meant something else by PEDs, I don't know.

Yes, I knew it was a joke, as was my response.

Pants
11-21-2011, 02:22 PM
Yes, I knew it was a joke, as was my response.

Dry humor is dry. Very nice.

FAX
11-21-2011, 04:29 PM
Yes, I knew it was a joke, as was my response.

Mr. Donger, ripping off the hilarity.

FAX

Valiant
11-21-2011, 04:42 PM
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I've been delving into the whole creation/evolution debate lately. It's pretty interesting if you look at the question in a fully objective frame of mind. There are so many aspects of human existence that remain open to debate.

Science is constantly "advancing". This means, of course, that, as time goes on, what we once believed as fact is, at some point, no longer found to be true. That provides very little comfort that "science" actually knows a whole heck of a lot about anything ... at any given point in time, I mean.

FAX THE PROBABLY NEEDS TO SMOKE A DOOBIE

When has religion advanced?? Basically religion stays in mommy mode.."cause I said so..."

Rain Man
02-22-2012, 03:03 PM
Oops. Never mind.

http://gizmodo.com/5887398/a-loose-cable-caused-the-faster+than+light-particles-test

Ridiculous: A Loose Cable Caused Those ‘Faster-Than-Light’ Particles

We know that Einstein always has the last laugh, but this is hilarious: the faster-than-light particles that could have wrecked his relativity theory are no more. It was a mistake in the test results caused by a loose cable.

Didn't anyone from the Genius Bar tell them about the first rule of tech support? Check your cables first! Oh, scientists!

Researchers at CERN have found out that a bad fiber-optics link between a GPS unit and a computer was causing the 60 nanosecond timing discrepancy that was driving everyone mad. Once they realized this, the cable was tightened and the difference was gone. Yes, the faster-than-light neutrinos are not real (at least, we haven't detected them if they exist) and the Universe can breath once again and keep destroying galactic wonders.

Apparently, the 60 nanosecond difference comes from the time it took to the data to travel through the cable, which fully accounts for the unexplainable 60 nanosecond neutrino speedup.

Surprising experiment

Last year, physicists published the results of a 3-year experiment that timed about 16,000 neutrino packets launched from CERN facilities in Geneva, travelling through Earth and arriving 2.43 milliseconds later to the subterranean facilities of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. There, the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (the OPERA particle detector) recorded the hits.

When scientists discovered that the particles were arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light—with only a 10 nanosecond error margin—they freaked out. Most physicists pointed out that this must be a mistake, since Einstein's theory clearly establishes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But CERN repeated the experiments and found the same results, which further puzzled out everyone. Still, they vowed to find the cause of the problem or definitely confirm the shocking findings. Now, it seems that a lousy cable connection was the simple answer to the whole problem.

Researchers say that they have to test the whole thing again, but it looks like the mystery may have been solved. Meanwhile, Einstein's atoms are laughing somewhere in space.

FAX
02-22-2012, 03:08 PM
A loose cable?

Sometimes scientists piss me off.

FAX

chefsos
02-22-2012, 03:14 PM
I've found that my quality of life improves whenever I can laugh at people who are smarter than me. Yep.

GordonGekko
02-22-2012, 03:16 PM
I wonder how many $millions were burned through to get to this conclusion

Donger
02-22-2012, 03:43 PM
Oops. Never mind.

http://gizmodo.com/5887398/a-loose-cable-caused-the-faster+than+light-particles-test

Ridiculous: A Loose Cable Caused Those ‘Faster-Than-Light’ Particles

We know that Einstein always has the last laugh, but this is hilarious: the faster-than-light particles that could have wrecked his relativity theory are no more. It was a mistake in the test results caused by a loose cable.

Didn't anyone from the Genius Bar tell them about the first rule of tech support? Check your cables first! Oh, scientists!

Researchers at CERN have found out that a bad fiber-optics link between a GPS unit and a computer was causing the 60 nanosecond timing discrepancy that was driving everyone mad. Once they realized this, the cable was tightened and the difference was gone. Yes, the faster-than-light neutrinos are not real (at least, we haven't detected them if they exist) and the Universe can breath once again and keep destroying galactic wonders.

Apparently, the 60 nanosecond difference comes from the time it took to the data to travel through the cable, which fully accounts for the unexplainable 60 nanosecond neutrino speedup.

Surprising experiment

Last year, physicists published the results of a 3-year experiment that timed about 16,000 neutrino packets launched from CERN facilities in Geneva, travelling through Earth and arriving 2.43 milliseconds later to the subterranean facilities of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. There, the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (the OPERA particle detector) recorded the hits.

When scientists discovered that the particles were arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light—with only a 10 nanosecond error margin—they freaked out. Most physicists pointed out that this must be a mistake, since Einstein's theory clearly establishes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But CERN repeated the experiments and found the same results, which further puzzled out everyone. Still, they vowed to find the cause of the problem or definitely confirm the shocking findings. Now, it seems that a lousy cable connection was the simple answer to the whole problem.

Researchers say that they have to test the whole thing again, but it looks like the mystery may have been solved. Meanwhile, Einstein's atoms are laughing somewhere in space.

Fucking dorks.

LMAO

Frazod
02-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Damn, that's embarrassing. But at least they came out and owned their mistake.

suds79
02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
Damn, that's embarrassing. But at least they came out and owned their mistake.

Did they have a choice?

No extra credit for doing the right thing.

Sincerely,

"I take care of my kids"

kepp
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
Their keyboard wasn't plugged in, was it?

ChiefaRoo
02-22-2012, 04:05 PM
HOLY SHIT IF TRUE


Ok, figure out how to do it on a large scale and start building some of them there Starships. We need to bring American Idol and Storage Wars to new Civilizations. Also, think of the welfare ideas our politicians could propose to these new races.

Earf Rules!

whoman69
02-22-2012, 05:56 PM
Had the same thing happen when I was working on the time machine.

BigRichard
02-22-2012, 06:38 PM
Had the same thing happen when I was working on the time machine.

Did you accidentally end up in 1955?

Simplicity
02-22-2012, 06:45 PM
Must be aliens...

crispystl420
02-22-2012, 07:23 PM
Oops. Never mind.

http://gizmodo.com/5887398/a-loose-cable-caused-the-faster+than+light-particles-test

Ridiculous: A Loose Cable Caused Those ‘Faster-Than-Light’ Particles

We know that Einstein always has the last laugh, but this is hilarious: the faster-than-light particles that could have wrecked his relativity theory are no more. It was a mistake in the test results caused by a loose cable.

Didn't anyone from the Genius Bar tell them about the first rule of tech support? Check your cables first! Oh, scientists!

Researchers at CERN have found out that a bad fiber-optics link between a GPS unit and a computer was causing the 60 nanosecond timing discrepancy that was driving everyone mad. Once they realized this, the cable was tightened and the difference was gone. Yes, the faster-than-light neutrinos are not real (at least, we haven't detected them if they exist) and the Universe can breath once again and keep destroying galactic wonders.

Apparently, the 60 nanosecond difference comes from the time it took to the data to travel through the cable, which fully accounts for the unexplainable 60 nanosecond neutrino speedup.

Surprising experiment

Last year, physicists published the results of a 3-year experiment that timed about 16,000 neutrino packets launched from CERN facilities in Geneva, travelling through Earth and arriving 2.43 milliseconds later to the subterranean facilities of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. There, the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (the OPERA particle detector) recorded the hits.

When scientists discovered that the particles were arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light—with only a 10 nanosecond error margin—they freaked out. Most physicists pointed out that this must be a mistake, since Einstein's theory clearly establishes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But CERN repeated the experiments and found the same results, which further puzzled out everyone. Still, they vowed to find the cause of the problem or definitely confirm the shocking findings. Now, it seems that a lousy cable connection was the simple answer to the whole problem.

Researchers say that they have to test the whole thing again, but it looks like the mystery may have been solved. Meanwhile, Einstein's atoms are laughing somewhere in space.

Sweet, let's get back to destroying our home planet.

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:25 PM
http://www.digitaljihad.com/gifs/Lightspeed.gif

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:26 PM
http://www.anycalculator.com/1701e_warp.gif

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:26 PM
http://www.ele.tut.fi/~lkaila/gifs/Warp.gif

whoman69
02-22-2012, 07:27 PM
Did you accidentally end up in 1955?

I'm a Chiefs fan. I kept looping back to 20 seconds after we chose Todd Blackledge in the draft.

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:29 PM
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/1/10/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)_at_warp.jpg

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:29 PM
http://gayscifinerds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/warp-speed-640x250.jpg

Claynus
02-22-2012, 07:29 PM
http://www.paveglio.com/artvideo3d/images/trekmovie/mov04.jpg

Saul Good
02-22-2012, 07:37 PM
Did you accidentally end up in 1955?

I drove my car with the cruise set at 88 heading south on I-35 this afternoon. I thought I went back about 15 years in time, but it turns out that this is just how people dress in Wichita.

4th and Long
03-30-2012, 02:34 PM
:hmmm:

Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns

The head of an experiment that appeared to show subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light has resigned from his post.

Prof Antonio Ereditato oversaw results that appeared to challenge Einstein's theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.

Reports said some members of his group, called Opera, had wanted him to resign.

Earlier in March, a repeat experiment found that the particles, known as neutrinos, did not exceed light speed.

When the results from the Opera group at the Gran Sasso underground laboratory in Italy were first published last year, they shocked the world, threatening to upend a century of physics as well as relativity theory - which holds the speed of light to be the Universe's absolute speed limit.

The experiment involved measuring the time it took for neutrinos to travel the 730km (450 miles) from Cern laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland to the lab in Italy.

Call for caution

Speaking at the time, Professor Ereditato added "words of caution" because of the "potentially great impact on physics" of the result.

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," he said.

"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't.

"When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this'."

Despite the call for caution, the results caused controversy within the world of physics.

If the findings had been confirmed, they would have disproved Albert Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity.

Earlier this month, a test run by a different group at the same Italian laboratory recorded neutrinos travelling at precisely light speed.

Sandro Centro, co-spokesman for the Icarus collaboration, said that he was not surprised by the result.

"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning," he told BBC News at the time.

"Now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos."

So far, Professor Ereditato has not commented on his decision to step down from his post.

saphojunkie
03-30-2012, 02:37 PM
Pretty much. Einstein was and is wrong.

IMPOSSIBLE!

Brainiac
03-30-2012, 02:39 PM
tl;dr

But I doubt we have any device that can measure the velocity or speed of anything traveling that fast.
How would you know if you didn't bother to read the article?

saphojunkie
03-30-2012, 02:40 PM
How would you know if you didn't bother to read the article?

Read further. Old thread, and the update shows the research was inaccurate.

Brainiac
03-30-2012, 02:51 PM
Read further. Old thread, and the update shows the research was inaccurate.
Pretty bad post on my part. As I read further in the thread, I found a couple of posts by me.

The pre-senile dementia is kicking in.

RaiderH8r
03-30-2012, 02:52 PM
LMAO

Yes, we do.

My speedometer only goes to 120 mph.

Donger
03-30-2012, 03:18 PM
My speedometer only goes to 120 mph.

LMAO

whoman69
03-30-2012, 06:47 PM
My speedometer only goes to 120 mph.

I don't think you'll get your Bigwheel anywhere close to that.

Easy 6
03-31-2012, 08:34 PM
Yeah, Einstein, you ****ing dumbass.

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

KS Smitty
03-31-2012, 08:37 PM
Keep fucking doubting Einstein...