Forums → The Tavern → Science discussions.
| 205 | 26245 |
This is an area for general science and maths based discussions.
Ask me directly for any info on any science or maths based topic!
- 205 Replies
Yes, it's part of his theory of general relativity, the part that doesn't make sense is "space-time. Which is the material of the universe", because it's not.Yes it is... It is what the material of the universe is made up of. The space being the lack of material (hence the term "space"...) and time being the consistent linear movement through events unfolding in the masses of the universe including here on Earth on a much smaller scale in comparison to the universe... Therefore that is what the universe is made out of...
That explains why it doesn't make senseNot really, but it explains why it doesn't make sense to you... I am allowed to muse thought processes on my own thread, ya know...
No it's notYes it is...
Yes it is...
Read his link...Don't just assume that you're always right, because you aren't.
I am allowed to muse thought processes on my own thread, ya know...
Muse all you want, either it makes sense or it doesn't, and in this case it does not.
Yes it is...
Did you read the link... Because I did. And they explained why its not. They forgot to factor in relativity. As the neutrino moves towards the reciver in Italy the reciver is moving towards the neutrino due to the earths rotation.
Read his link...Don't just assume that you're always right, because you aren't.Yes I am.
Muse all you want, either it makes sense or it doesn't, and in this case it does not.Which musing are you talking about?
Did you read the link... Because I did. And they explained why its not. They forgot to factor in relativity. As the neutrino moves towards the reciver in Italy the reciver is moving towards the neutrino due to the earths rotation.Yes I did read it, dair5, but they said that their number crunching (i.e their calculations in lament's terms...) hasn't finished yet. Ipsofacto they haven't actually finished disproving it yet. They're saying that it looks highly likely that it will be disproved, but it hasn't been yet. Until the calculations are complete it hasn't been disproved and therefore it still stands that neutrinos are faster than the speed of light until they are proved otherwise, which isn't finished yet so it still hasn't been proved otherwise and therefore you can't assume that they don't until they've finished their calculations. Therefore we don't know for certain. Even though they have a nice theory that states that they probably aren't, we haven't got the statistics in yet to disprove it... One should not assume...
Yes I am.
Yes I did read it, dair5,
No, you are not right, and you obviously did not read it fully.
"Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again."
"Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again."
but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe
at least for now,See? At least for now relativity is proven, but it can be disproven... If you see that the theory of relativity is used to disprove that neutrinos travel fast than the speed of light, then why can't it be used to prove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light...? You see, if they used the theory of relativity to disprove neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light, then how can the theory that it is trying to disprove be used to prove itself? If the theory of relativity is to be disproved, then you can't use it in your calculations because you're trying to prove it doesn't exist. if you're trying to prove that something doesn't exist, then surely you don't use it in your calculations...? That would assume that it does exist when it may well not. If the theory of relativity (i.e. that everything travels at speeds relative to light) doesn't exist, then it can't be used to disprove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light because it might not exist and therefore it cannot be used. So therefore if you assume that it doesn't exist, the surely it would prove that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light... So you can't decide either way if the neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light because you don't know whether to apply the theory of relativity or not because you don't know whether it exists or not... Therefore you don't know whether to apply the theory or not and therefore you don't know whether the information is proving or disproving the theory of relativity because you need it to calculate it. And you can't assume that it exists if you are proving it because that defeats the purpose of proving/disproving it. So you don't really know whether you calculations are correct with or without it and therefore you don't know whether it is telling you that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light or that they don't travel faster than the speed of light...
See how the information becomes inevitably pointless? They could get around this using earth based sensitive equipment which wouldn't need the theory of relativity and therefore would be more useful in proving/disproving it. Therefore I was right from the beginning about it being unknown whether it is right or not...
At least for now relativity is proven, but it can be disproven...
...
Which is not what you were saying. Earlier you clearly said that it was not yet proven that the neutrinos didn't move faster than light because the final calculations were not in. Don't try to make it look like you were right because you didn't mean that, it's clear as day.
then why can't it be used to prove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light...?
Because they don't. That's why.
See how the information becomes inevitably pointless?
I see that you're trying to make it look like you were right even when you're plainly not.
Which is not what you were saying. Earlier you clearly said that it was not yet proven that the neutrinos didn't move faster than light because the final calculations were not in. Don't try to make it look like you were right because you didn't mean that, it's clear as day.I'm still right about it not being adequately disproven because they used the theory they were trying to disprove to prove it, which is blatantly counter-intuitive...
Because they don't. That's why.According to the theory of relativity they don't. But if the theory of relativity doesn't exist, they do. And we can't assume that it does, because that's what we're trying to prove/disprove...
I see that you're trying to make it look like you were right even when you're plainly not.Look, it is clearly pointless to use the theory you are trying to prove/disprove to prove it. That's like using a word to describe its definition; clearly pointless. If you are trying to prove/disprove the theory of relativity, you don't use the theory of relativity in your calculations. You use different calculations that don't assume that it already exists, to make the experiment prove/disprove it. Even if neutrinos don't travel faster than the speed of light, it is clearly pointless to assume the theory of relativity exists to perform the calculations. Therefore they should do the timing on Earth to cut out the theory of relativity in the calculations and prove/disprove it once and for all. Don't pretend that that doesn't make sense, because if you're using a theory you're trying to prove/disprove then you can't use because then you assume it does exist and therefore why perform the experiment in the first place if you're already assuming that it exists... That's just pointless and stupid. Therefore I am correct and you are possibly incorrect. Unless it is proven without the assumption that the theory of relativity does exist, then it can't be proven one way or another and therefore I refuse to believe that neutrinos do or don't travel faster than the speed of light. What I'm saying makes sense, don't deny that it does, because I'm fundamentally correct. Therefore my opinion still stands on the matter: I'm not convinced either way... End of...
"Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again."
Bolded for emphasis.
Apart from that blog post being a month old already, this not being peer-reviewed essentially means it's worthless to use as "evidence" because you don't know whether it is correct or not. Don't just believe anything you find on some internet blog.
And it isn't. The experiment was repeated just last week and it, again, resulted in Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.
Have some New York Times as my delicious source.
The paper detailing both the first and second experiment can be found here.
Bolded for emphasis.Interesting. Was that with or without the application of the theory of relativity in its calculations, or don't you know...? Just wonderin' is all...
Apart from that blog post being a month old already, this not being peer-reviewed essentially means it's worthless to use as "evidence" because you don't know whether it is correct or not. Don't just believe anything you find on some internet blog.
And it isn't. The experiment was repeated just last week and it, again, resulted in Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.
I haven't read the actual paper, so I can't say. However, there still seems to be a debate about whether or not there's a systematic flaw in the experiment.
Have an exerpt from that article I posted:
Physicists said the new paper had answered some of the questions about the experiment, but many remain: for example, about how the clocks were synchronized between Geneva and Gran Sasso, and how the distance between them was ascertained. âIt does appear that they have done a good job,â said John Learned, a neutrino physicist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who was not involved in the experiment. But, he added, âIf there is a deep systematic error in the calculation of expected time difference, this remains.â
Alvaro de Rujula, a CERN theorist, said there were two interpretations of the experiment. âOne is that they have stumbled upon a revolutionary discovery; the other, on which I would place my bet, is that they are still making and not finding the very same error.â
In conclusion, still nothing conclusive.
Don't just assume that you're always right, because you aren't.
Yes I am.
If this is his attitude, why is anyone even arguing with him anymore? He's obviously to busy wallowing in his arrogance and denying proved theories to accept that he doesn't have any idea what anyone is talking about.
If this is his attitude, why is anyone even arguing with him anymore?
His attitude IS why I'm arguing with him mostly now. Perhaps I am stubborn, but I just can't stand to see someone claim something, be disproven, and say that they meant something else when anyone with half a brain could see that they meant the previous.
He's obviously to busy wallowing in his arrogance and denying proved theories to accept that he doesn't have any idea what anyone is talking about.
I agree with the first part (The bold) but I do think he knows what people are talking about. He just assumes, that in any situation (this is from what I've seen, maybe not) that he is right no matter what. He doesn't read the other side's post fully even because he's so sure of himself.
By the way, please don't just make statements like "I'm right." and "I win." without backing them up at the very least. Especially when there's a landslide of evidence against your point that you didn't read. Not reading someone else's side doesn't make you right.
I agree with the first part (The bold) but I do think he knows what people are talking about. He just assumes, that in any situation (this is from what I've seen, maybe not) that he is right no matter what. He doesn't read the other side's post fully even because he's so sure of himself.
He's trying to debate that an universally accepted theory (that he said he doesn't even fully understand*) know that has been proven a myriad of times, is wrong, even after one of the few things that has challenged it has been proven to be untrue, but whatever.
*"I don't have a full understanding of the theory or relativity" (page 1)
Besides for that (and i may be getting some accusations wrong (i deduced these from yours, frank's, and his profiles) that gamer hasn't had the best
behavior
in
the
past, seeing as how he may be on his 4th account and all.
@master565: Being banned doesn't make me automatically wrong about the theory of relativity. I'm not saying that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light; I'm merely stating the obvious fact that they can't use the theory of relativity in their calculations, because that would be assuming that it exists. Seeing as that's what they're trying to find out, they can't use that in their calculations because it assumes that they've already proved it. Anybody with half a sense would know that in order to prove something you can't use it in your calculations without proving it exists, therefore it is pointless. So they should use Earth based technology to record the time. Saying that there's a landslide of evidence against me is all well and good, but at the end of the day that evidence was procured from using the theory of relativity whence they're proving it, so that is assumption. You can't assume that it exists before you've finished proving/disproving it. That is just utter nonsense! So both of you are wrong. At least about me being wrong. I'm not stating that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light; I'm just saying that they can't use the theory of relativity in their calculations because that's what they're trying to prove does/doesn't exist...
Come on; you gotta see that, don't you...? Or don't you understand the principle of theorisation? That you cannot assume your calculation is correct if it has the theory that your trying to prove/disprove because you assume that there is only one outcome: that it does exist and therefore your theory is assuming so that is wrong. Because theories can't be based of presumption. I know that even if I don't understand the theory of relativity. So I therefore know the flaws in the calculations. Even if they happen to be right the way that they're going about it is wrong. End of. Stop repeating yourselves because you know that what I'm saying is right...
Thread is locked!