CERN's faster-than-light neutrino report

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 abstract

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1 PDF, 4.7 MB, 24 pages

Thad Floryan:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 abstract

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1 PDF, 4.7 MB, 24 pages

Tempest in a teacup or a revolution in physics? If I knew which I would
already have my Nobel.

I think that I have one thing in common with the experts in the field
I'll believe this when I see it confirmed repeatedly and independently
with different equipment. As I understand it there are accelerators in
the U.S. and Japan that could do this experiment--though the Japanese
one is off-line.

One thing that is certain is that the nutsos are crawling out of the
woodwork with proofs that they discovered this years ago.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sep 23, 3:43*pm, Davoud wrote:

One thing that is certain is that the nutsos are crawling out of the
woodwork with proofs that they discovered this years ago.

They both take short cuts. Neutrinos and the resident nutters.

BTW: Why is Andrex so quiet on this one? Only last week he was
claiming ED and Brenda Gaff were infinitely better than Einstein!
Perhaps Andrex is too sly to allow himself the luxury of a premature,
full flush. Just in case it leads to a very public retraculation. With
Hanson pulling his strings you never know where these things will
lead. :-)))

On Sep 23, 5:16*am, Thad Floryan wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 *abstract

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1 PDF, 4.7 MB, 24 pages

Don't worry guys,the real issue involves the 'scientific method' and
where it comes from and while few presently could handle the ins and
outs of the distortions Newton introduced,it may happen that there are
genuine empiricists out there who care enough to prevent their
colleagues and the wider population from continuing to chase
conceptual rainbows.

I wouldn't expect readers here to go through the original distortions
even as they raise most of the issues covering time and the
determination of the speed of Light by Roemer through Jupiter's moon
of Io,that requires a real effort by men who are determined to set up
a stable background for understanding the terrestrial and celestial
arenas and few could make sense of what Newton was trying to do,it
just happens that I can but not as an end in itself but a hindrance to
a wider understanding of astronomy and astronomers.

Most of the damage is done here -


"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true,
or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change. The
duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the same,
whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and therefore,
it ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible measures
thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the astronomical
equation. The necessity of which equation, for determining the times
of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the
pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter."
Newton ,Principia

On Sep 24, 2:00*am, kelleher shrieked:

Most of the damage is done here -

True, but it wasn't your cue.

You're on after the flea circus and the performing dogs.

Or was it the other way around?

This empirical hand-wringing is all very fine, however, readers here
are dealing with an error that betrays the highly rigged arguments
which conceal Newton's promotion of the 'scientific method' rather
than the 20th century racket which merely extends Newton's
obfuscations and especially with timekeeeping averages.I have no
problem trying to convince a section of the empirical community that
it in their best interests to focus on what happened in the late 17th
century rather than this fuss about the speed of light but there is no
compulsion to appeal to common sense,just people discussing why we
inherit certain conceptions,some which lead to dead ends,some which
need to be modified or jettisoned and others which are clean and
clear.

As a matter of observation,the major adjustment has to be the
resolution for retrogrades based on planetary orbital comparisons and
jettisoning the idea of modeling from a speculative viewpoint.I can
see why empirical readers are reluctant to depart from the false
resolution which involves the conception of absolute/relative space
and motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

To make sense of Roemer's insight,and there is an intractable problem
with Roemer's approach, requires the admission that the varying
distances in the orbits of Jupiter and our planet provide the bulk of
the resolution for the anomalous motion of Io,along with why the
luminosity of a planet increases at retrogrades,why Kepler and all
astronomers had good reason to believe that all orbits are not
circular and ultimately how Copernicus succeeded in finding the
arguments for planetary motion.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead but it requires that some
empiricists split off and get to the core issues rather than dithering
around with meaningless junk .

oriel36 wrote:
This empirical hand-wringing is all very fine, however, readers here
are dealing with an error that betrays the highly rigged arguments
which conceal Newton's promotion of the 'scientific method' rather
than the 20th century racket which merely extends Newton's
obfuscations and especially with timekeeeping averages.I have no
problem trying to convince a section of the empirical community that
it in their best interests to focus on what happened in the late 17th
century rather than this fuss about the speed of light but there is no
compulsion to appeal to common sense,just people discussing why we
inherit certain conceptions,some which lead to dead ends,some which
need to be modified or jettisoned and others which are clean and
clear.

As a matter of observation,the major adjustment has to be the
resolution for retrogrades based on planetary orbital comparisons and
jettisoning the idea of modeling from a speculative viewpoint.I can
see why empirical readers are reluctant to depart from the false
resolution which involves the conception of absolute/relative space
and motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

To make sense of Roemer's insight,and there is an intractable problem
with Roemer's approach, requires the admission that the varying
distances in the orbits of Jupiter and our planet provide the bulk of
the resolution for the anomalous motion of Io,along with why the
luminosity of a planet increases at retrogrades,why Kepler and all
astronomers had good reason to believe that all orbits are not
circular and ultimately how Copernicus succeeded in finding the
arguments for planetary motion.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead but it requires that some
empiricists split off and get to the core issues rather than dithering
around with meaningless junk .
Roehmer measured the speed of light using the aberration of jupiter's
moons.
You believe light to have infinite speed.

On Sep 24, 1:20*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
This empirical hand-wringing is all very fine, however, readers here
are dealing with an error that betrays the highly rigged arguments
which conceal Newton's promotion of the 'scientific method' rather
than the 20th century racket which merely extends Newton's
obfuscations and especially with timekeeeping averages.I have no
problem trying to convince a section of the empirical community that
it in their best interests to focus on what happened in the late 17th
century rather than this fuss about the speed of light but there is no
compulsion to appeal to common sense,just people discussing why we
inherit certain conceptions,some which lead to dead ends,some which
need to be modified or jettisoned and others which are clean and
clear.

As a matter of observation,the major adjustment has to be the
resolution for retrogrades based on planetary orbital comparisons and
jettisoning the idea of modeling from a speculative viewpoint.I can
see why empirical readers are reluctant to depart from the false
resolution which involves the conception of absolute/relative space
and motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

To make sense of Roemer's insight,and there is an intractable problem
with Roemer's approach, requires the admission that the *varying
distances in the orbits of Jupiter and our planet provide the bulk of
the resolution for the anomalous motion of Io,along with why the
luminosity of a planet increases at retrogrades,why Kepler and all
astronomers had good reason to believe that all orbits are not
circular and ultimately how Copernicus succeeded in finding the
arguments for planetary motion.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead but it requires that some
empiricists split off and get to the core issues rather than dithering
around with meaningless junk .

Roehmer measured the speed of light using the aberration of jupiter's
moons.
You believe light to have infinite speed.

When you can extract the rotation of the Earth out of daily
temperature oscillations then perhaps you would have something to say
but you cannot,choosing to believe 1465 rotations in 1461 days so
forget something as complicated as the Mora Luminis or the Equation of
Light as it was properly known

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/324?

All this fuss about 10 billionth of a second out when you poor
creatures are out by an entire rotation every year as the Earth turns
365 1/4 rotations in proportion to 1 orbital cycle while the empirical
cult assigns 366 1/4 rotation per circuit and 1465 rotations in 4
years.

I look at what Isaac tried to do and his empirical followers can't and
do not want to put his conceptions in context of astronomy and I
assure you they wither fairly quickly as I have demonstrated,it is
therefore not the presence of empiricists that count,after all,they
will believe anything and everything,it is the empiricist who doesn't
particularly wish to see their life's work going to support
ideological dead ends,the scientific equivalent of being buried alive.

I already know that conceptually there is nowhere left to go ,at least
with concepts built on the predictive system of Ra/Dec or rather ,the
misuse of that system in an attempt to create a connection with
experimental sciences at a human level.I no longer think you disgrace
yourselves but there is a conclusion far worse than that as I watch
this thing unfold over the years.

oriel36 wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:20 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
This empirical hand-wringing is all very fine, however, readers here
are dealing with an error that betrays the highly rigged arguments
which conceal Newton's promotion of the 'scientific method' rather
than the 20th century racket which merely extends Newton's
obfuscations and especially with timekeeeping averages.I have no
problem trying to convince a section of the empirical community that
it in their best interests to focus on what happened in the late 17th
century rather than this fuss about the speed of light but there is no
compulsion to appeal to common sense,just people discussing why we
inherit certain conceptions,some which lead to dead ends,some which
need to be modified or jettisoned and others which are clean and
clear.

As a matter of observation,the major adjustment has to be the
resolution for retrogrades based on planetary orbital comparisons and
jettisoning the idea of modeling from a speculative viewpoint.I can
see why empirical readers are reluctant to depart from the false
resolution which involves the conception of absolute/relative space
and motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

To make sense of Roemer's insight,and there is an intractable problem
with Roemer's approach, requires the admission that the varying
distances in the orbits of Jupiter and our planet provide the bulk of
the resolution for the anomalous motion of Io,along with why the
luminosity of a planet increases at retrogrades,why Kepler and all
astronomers had good reason to believe that all orbits are not
circular and ultimately how Copernicus succeeded in finding the
arguments for planetary motion.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead but it requires that some
empiricists split off and get to the core issues rather than dithering
around with meaningless junk .

Roehmer measured the speed of light using the aberration of jupiter's
moons.
You believe light to have infinite speed.

When you can extract the rotation of the Earth out of daily
temperature oscillations then perhaps you would have something to say
but you cannot,choosing to believe 1465 rotations in 1461 days so
forget something as complicated as the Mora Luminis or the Equation of
Light as it was properly known

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/324?

All this fuss about 10 billionth of a second out when you poor
creatures are out by an entire rotation every year as the Earth turns
365 1/4 rotations in proportion to 1 orbital cycle while the empirical
cult assigns 366 1/4 rotation per circuit and 1465 rotations in 4
years.

I look at what Isaac tried to do and his empirical followers can't and
do not want to put his conceptions in context of astronomy and I
assure you they wither fairly quickly as I have demonstrated,it is
therefore not the presence of empiricists that count,after all,they
will believe anything and everything,it is the empiricist who doesn't
particularly wish to see their life's work going to support
ideological dead ends,the scientific equivalent of being buried alive.

I already know that conceptually there is nowhere left to go ,at least
with concepts built on the predictive system of Ra/Dec or rather ,the
misuse of that system in an attempt to create a connection with
experimental sciences at a human level.I no longer think you disgrace
yourselves but there is a conclusion far worse than that as I watch
this thing unfold over the years.

Forget the usual rubbish you post. Answer the question. Do you believe
light has an infinite velocity?

On Sep 24, 3:51*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:20 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
This empirical hand-wringing is all very fine, however, readers here
are dealing with an error that betrays the highly rigged arguments
which conceal Newton's promotion of the 'scientific method' rather
than the 20th century racket which merely extends Newton's
obfuscations and especially with timekeeeping averages.I have no
problem trying to convince a section of the empirical community that
it in their best interests to focus on what happened in the late 17th
century rather than this fuss about the speed of light but there is no
compulsion to appeal to common sense,just people discussing why we
inherit certain conceptions,some which lead to dead ends,some which
need to be modified or jettisoned and others which are clean and
clear.

As a matter of observation,the major adjustment has to be the
resolution for retrogrades based on planetary orbital comparisons and
jettisoning the idea of modeling from a speculative viewpoint.I can
see why empirical readers are reluctant to depart from the false
resolution which involves the conception of absolute/relative space
and motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

To make sense of Roemer's insight,and there is an intractable problem
with Roemer's approach, requires the admission that the *varying
distances in the orbits of Jupiter and our planet provide the bulk of
the resolution for the anomalous motion of Io,along with why the
luminosity of a planet increases at retrogrades,why Kepler and all
astronomers had good reason to believe that all orbits are not
circular and ultimately how Copernicus succeeded in finding the
arguments for planetary motion.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead but it requires that some
empiricists split off and get to the core issues rather than dithering
around with meaningless junk .

Roehmer measured the speed of light using the aberration of jupiter's
moons.
You believe light to have infinite speed.

When you can extract the rotation of the Earth out of daily
temperature oscillations then perhaps you would have something to say
but you cannot,choosing to believe 1465 rotations in 1461 days so
forget something as complicated as the Mora Luminis or the Equation of
Light as it was properly known

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/324?

All this fuss about 10 billionth of a second out when you poor
creatures are out by an entire rotation every year as the Earth turns
365 1/4 rotations in proportion to 1 orbital cycle while the empirical
cult assigns 366 1/4 rotation per circuit and 1465 rotations in 4
years.

I look at what Isaac tried to do and his empirical followers can't and
do not want to put his conceptions in context of astronomy and I
assure you they wither fairly quickly as I have demonstrated,it is
therefore not the presence of empiricists that count,after all,they
will believe anything and everything,it is the empiricist who doesn't
particularly wish to see their life's work going to support
ideological dead ends,the scientific equivalent of being buried alive.

I already know that conceptually there is nowhere left to go ,at least
with concepts built on the predictive system of Ra/Dec or rather ,the
misuse of that system in an attempt to create a connection with
experimental sciences at a human level.I no longer think you disgrace
yourselves but there is a conclusion far worse than that as I watch
this thing unfold over the years.

Forget the usual rubbish you post. Answer the question. Do you believe
light has an infinite velocity?

The people who don't believe that the Earth turns 1461 times in 1461
days are a dour and sour bunch for what else could they be.How does a
group of people with a hatred for astronomy and just about everything
else get to speak for the terrestrial and celestial arenas ?.

There is a huge problem with 1676 Roemer's use of the Equation of Time
but that relies on readers knowing how the Equation of Time features
in planetary dynamics and especially as it is formatted around the
calendar cycle and daily rotation as an assumption.As Roemer's insight
is based on planetary orbital comparisons between Jupiter and Earth,a
slight observational discrepancy would show up and not until John
Harrison created a separate set of tables for a leap year could the
Equation of Time take on a more practicable and limited use whereas
in Roemer's era it would create problems when very small differences
are observed such as the appearance and disappearance of Io in its
circuit of Jupiter.I don't pretend to believe that readers can see the
problem let alone the solution yet somehow they might be able to make
some connection with Isaac and what he was trying to do -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...... The necessity of
which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced
as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of
the satellites of Jupiter." Newton ,Principia

A genuine astronomer gets back to basics and sees where they can go
from there as confident people,not that they won't make mistakes or
take wrong turns but at least they will understand their own system
better and work to restore a balance that was lost to speculative
mathematicians with no respect for the geometric language of
astronomy.The fuss about light speed will die down,not just as there
is too much money and reputations involved but the speculative free-
for-all that is the 'scientific method' is central to the issue and
the cause of such a catastrophe.

So,before a reader tries to consider Roemer's approach,they will have
to work out how to extract the rotation of the Earth from the
appearance of the Sun each day and 1461 times in proportion to near
enough 4 years,when readers can do this then they may speed of greater
motions and effects or more detailed features such as variations in
orbital speed and the Equation of Light but not before then.