CERN's faster-than-light neutrino report

oriel36 wrote:
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.

Answer the question!
Do you believe light has an infinite speed?

On 9/22/11 10:16 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 abstract

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

Thanks Thad.

Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

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

Ned Wright's comment:
"This experiment did not show that neutrinos arrived 60 nsec earlier
than photons, because they could not send photons through the 730 km of
rock traversed by the neutrinos. Instead the neutrinos arrive earlier
than a prediction coming from a long multi-step calculation. This may
become another DAMA imbroglio. Could it be something in the L'Aquila air
or water"? Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

In article ,
Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/22/11 10:16 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 abstract

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

Thanks Thad.

Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

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

Ned Wright's comment:
"This experiment did not show that neutrinos arrived 60 nsec earlier
than photons, because they could not send photons through the 730 km of
rock traversed by the neutrinos. Instead the neutrinos arrive earlier
than a prediction coming from a long multi-step calculation.

Yes, it's a long multi-step calculation, but the biggest part of it is
a long multi-step calculation from the field of surveying, and that's
one in which people have run successful multi-step calculations for
two centuries and where an inaccuracy of sixty feet in five hundred
miles would have been considered unforgiveably sloppy by George
Everest in 1830 if not by Mason and Dixon in 1770.

Which means that the error probably has to be in the thousand or so
feet between the accelerator and the rock; and most of the time-scales
there are a lot shorter than nanoseconds.

So I suspect that the error will be a subtle matter of particle
physics; some odd correlated behaviour in decays in high-intensity
beams of muons.

Tom

The barman said "I'm sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in
this bar."
A faster-than-light neutrino walks into a bar.

On 9/24/11 8:28 PM, T.T. wrote:
The barman said "I'm sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in
this bar."
A faster-than-light neutrino walks into a bar.



:-)

On Sep 24, 10:39*pm, Thomas Womack
wrote:
In article ,
Sam Wormley wrote:









On 9/22/11 10:16 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 * abstract

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

Thanks Thad.

Article:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

Paper:
*http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Ned Wright's comment:
* "This experiment did not show that neutrinos arrived 60 nsec earlier
than photons, because they could not send photons through the 730 km of
rock traversed by the neutrinos. Instead the neutrinos arrive earlier
than a prediction coming from a long multi-step calculation.

Yes, it's a long multi-step calculation, but the biggest part of it is
a long multi-step calculation from the field of surveying, and that's
one in which people have run successful multi-step calculations for
two centuries and where an inaccuracy of sixty feet in five hundred
miles would have been considered unforgiveably sloppy by George
Everest in 1830 if not by Mason and Dixon in 1770.


Inaccuracy indeed !,humans don't behave like this as Sam,working
within the confines of the empirical cult,will insist there is an
extra rotation of the Earth each year in stating 366 1/4 rotations in
proportion to 1 orbital circuit.This is not sloppy,this is incredible
by any standard and for all the wrong reasons.

How,for goodness sake,can an entire group of people follow an ideology
which cannot reason through a multi-step procedure which correlates
the rotation of the Earth in 24 hours with accurate watches which
register that rotation and force themselves to believe the calendar
based observation of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds which amounts to
being 3 minutes 56 seconds off target in 24 hours notwithstanding the
entire history of longitude at their feet including the works of the
original innovators such as Harrison and Huygens.

The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 365 1/4 times in a year,there is
a slight difference of 11 minutes which is allowed to run as an
orbital drift but essentially there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days
and if readers here don't support this correlation then we are
finished as a civilization,no two ways about that.

On 9/22/11 10:16 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 abstract

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

Raw physics at its' finest!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562

Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow and Andrew Cohen make the rather simple
and eyebrow-raisingly obvious observation that superluminal neutrinos
would radiate like crazy (via bremsstrahlung to electron-positron
pairs). This is essentially the same effect as Cerenkov radiation when
particles exceed c/n in a material of index of refraction n.

The threshold neutrino energy for bremsstrahlung would be about 140 MeV,
if the value of the fractional speed excess is about 5 x 10^-5 as OPERA
and MINOS claim, and most (about 3/4) of the neutrino energy would be
lost in each emission. The result would be an asymptotic value of
neutrino energy of about 12.5 GeV, in contrast with the 17.5 GeV claimed
detected by OPERA.

This result is completely independent of the questions of how the
surveying was done, how the timing was done, or whether
Lorentz-violating neutrinos are jumping branes to do so. Basically it
means that neutrinos can't behave this way, even if you believe that c
is not a hard speed limit.

Furthermore, they point out that you can use the same argument looking
at cosmic ray showers in the Ice Cube detector, where the energies are a
factor of thousand higher, and deduce a fractional speed excess of about
4 x 10^-10, which is even more stringent than the low energy (~10 MeV)
neutrino limit from SN1987A.

Bottom line: It now appears pretty clear that the OPERA experiment
messed up *somewhere*, even if it's not obvious where.

On Oct 1, 2:20*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Bottom line: It now appears pretty clear that the OPERA experiment
messed up *somewhere*, even if it's not obvious where.

Empiricists neither know nor care that they are an entire rotation out
in proportion to Earth each orbital cycle which puts this junk in
proper context of the real issues.I asked for a conceptual moratorium
many years ago to straighten the issues out and did reckon on the
cooperation of readers here,after all,it could only move forward by
people who are astronomers but have found the reaction to be
surprising,even the venomous here have largely withdrawn as the
details have emerged as to the severe damage done to science and
especially astronomy.

The fact that the ridiculous value comes from a NASA website is one of
the most dismal aspects as the wider population has a great respect
for the engineering achievement of individuals within this
organization,at least the explorer part yet in the matter of
interpretative astronomy the ideology is not so much dysfunctional as
to be the lowest form of reasoning known -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year. " NASA

There will always be people engaged in the phony concerns that exist
only in their imagination and relying on fractions of a second but
here is an issue which is paramount ,needs only the experience of the
day and its effects to resolves for unless the balance between 1461
rotations and 1461 days is restored as a principle,Western
civilization will rot from the inside insofar as there is nothing
difficult about the technical details,it is the willingness to deal
with the issue which is the real problem.