Gotcha. By this logic, we can't use the theory of gravity to predict anything either.
Gravity has been proven indefinitely. Newton had the idea and the proceeded to prove it. The planets have a strong gravitational field. They have the ability to pull things towards it. All masses have a gravitational field. But planets and anything bigger like stars or denser like blackholes and neutron stars all have really strong gravitational field. This has been proven indefinitely; it isn't a theory, it is a an attraction. Not a force, no, an attraction. Like the attraction between protons and electrons causing the formation of atoms. The gravity on Earth is 9.81 meters per second squared as it is acceleration. So you
can use it unless your proving it; you can use any theory you want
apart from the ones that your trying to prove/disprove. Okay? I am very up on the principles behind theorisation, so don't test me.
Anyway, what's this about neutrinos moving faster than light? And why has it gone on for fifteen pages?
It's catching like a house on fire. I always russel up a good debate...
We are not trying to prove relativity. We're trying to see how fast a neutrino can travel. We already know relativity exists. We just want to see if neutrinos can travel at a certain speed.
No, the neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light disproves the theory of relativity, therefore you can't assume that it exists anymore because it is a very good way of disproving it. But what if the theory of relativity is not actually true? What if neutrinos
can travel faster than the speed of light??? Then the very foundations of physics would be torn apart. Therefore to prevent the necessity to completely reinvent physics from the foundations up, the physicists are trying their hardest to disprove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light because that would then in turn disprove the theory of relativity. Therefore you can't use the theory of relativity because the neutrinos make the theory of relativity debatable. Therefore if you use it in your calculations, you assume that it exists when it may well not. Because the theory of relativity disproves that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. But they
might travel faster than the speed of light if the theory of relativity doesn't exist. Therefore this experiment is fundamental to proving/disproving the theory of relativity and therefore it can't be used in the calculations. So you have to use Earth based equipment to cut out the necessity to use it. That way the existence/non-existence won't of the theory of relativity don't get in the way of the calculations, and then they can successfully prove/disprove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light and therefore whether the theory of relativity is true or not and therefore whether the entire foundations of physics have to be rebuilt again from the very beginning or if they are on safe, stable foundations. You see you can't use any theories that could be proved/disproved by the experiment, because then you're assuming that it exists, when it might well turn out not to. Therefore you have to make sure that the experiment performed doesn't have the requirement of the theory and therefore you can deduce whether that theory actually is true or not...
Therefore the theory of relativity cannot be used in the explanation of whether or not neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not... So, dair5, that's why the theory of relativity cannot be used in the calculations of the speed of the neutrinos; because it might well not be true after all; hence why it is labeled merely a "theory". It has held well so far, but who knows when that theory will eventually fail to explain something and then suddenly you'll need a new theory. Unfortunately for physicists, the theory of relativity is what the foundations of many of their discoveries were based off. If it turns out that it doesn't exist after all, then it'll be a pain for them to have to rethink all of their theories, therefore they refuse to believe that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light and therefore they are trying desperately hard to prove otherwise so that they don't have to reconstruct modern physics from right near the beginning again.
That's why they are trying so hard to disprove it.
Therefore we don't truly know whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not and therefore physicists are performing more tests on it. Why would they do that if it was a long gone dead and buried case, Kasic? Obviously they aren't satisfied with the results, or the safety of the theory of relativity. They wouldn't otherwise perform more tests if they believed it to be completely safe and therefore they must believe that they need to do further tests, else why would they!? They must obviously think that they need to and therefore the theory of relativity can't be all that safe for them to need to do more tests, therefore it can't be all proven and completed, so they must still be unsure and therefore they are doing more tests. So it isn't completely proven at all.
THAT'S why they're doing more tests on it. Therefore it can't be already proven. Otherwise why would they do more tests on it!?!?
Therefore the theory of relativity isn't safe and physicists aren't 100% sure whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light yet or not...
After further tests, they should be sure. Then it will be clear what the outcome is... So don't be too sure of yourself there...
