 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than they
> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the "large
> magnitude of the effect"...
Well, given that quantum physics has been verified to within one part in
10^14 or so, saying "you're off by 20 parts per million" is a huge number.
That would (for example) put your GPS off by hundreds of yards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than they
> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the "large
> magnitude of the effect"...
For example:
http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Date: 26 Sep 2011 04:40:12
Message: <4e803a6c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2011 04:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than
>> they
>> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the
>> "large
>> magnitude of the effect"...
>
> Well, given that quantum physics has been verified to within one part in
> 10^14 or so, saying "you're off by 20 parts per million" is a huge
> number. That would (for example) put your GPS off by hundreds of yards.
Doesn't the refractive index of air *already* put GPS off by several
dozen *miles*? And they don't seem to have too much effect on GPS
accuracy (i.e., they managed to compensate for it). Of course, you can't
compensate for something that you didn't know existed, but it still
doesn't seem to be affecting GPS.
It may be that light isn't the fastest thing in the universe. But so
long as the speed of light is roughly correct, GPS should still work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>
> --
> - Warp
Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days when
is it such a shock when we are reminded for the umpteenth time that the MODELS
that we build in accordance with our various theories apply to a specific range
of observed phenomena and that the greater universe as a whole is under no
obligation to constrain its existence within those parameters? M-theory should
.... eleven dimensions?
interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment. It could
be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
spacetime. I know this is a REAL stretch, but /IF/ this is a first case of
being able to generate a trajectory from within 3D+t space that moves outside of
it*, the implications COULD be profound. The hypothesis... OK, conjecture ;-)...
anything truly essential missing from modern inquiries into high energy physics,
These folks will always find (or invent) SOMETHING they can latch onto for this
arguments rather than the previous bazillion.
Best regards,
Mike C.
*Obviously, no set of vectors contained entirely within 3D+t space can
mathematically add up to a result ending outside of it. However, it might be
possible to generate a physical phenomenon which could INTERACT with an existing
extra-dimensional event or, perhaps, to produce an event whose nature defies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/09/2011 03:10 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> M-theory should
> .... eleven dimensions?
Last time I checked, M-theory is an interesting hypothesis which as yet
has no experimental support. (Mainly because it doesn't predict anything
yet.)
> interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment. It could
> be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
> spacetime.
It's always nice to see experimental results lead to new scientific
understanding of nature. Unfortunately, these days that almost always
means new results with utterly defy comprehension. But we'll see...
These people are idiots.
If scientists already understood everything about the universe, there
would be literally no need to continue studying science, now would there?
Scientists *know* there are still questions to be answered. And they're
trying to answer them, every single day. Religious fanatics, on the
other hand, simply want everybody to agree with them, so that they can
feel smugly superior. Infantile, really...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alain
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Date: 26 Sep 2011 18:45:38
Message: <4e810092@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>>
>> --
>> - Warp
>
> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days when
> is it such a shock when we are reminded for the umpteenth time that the MODELS
> that we build in accordance with our various theories apply to a specific range
> of observed phenomena and that the greater universe as a whole is under no
> obligation to constrain its existence within those parameters? M-theory should
> .... eleven dimensions?
>
> interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment. It could
> be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
> spacetime. I know this is a REAL stretch, but /IF/ this is a first case of
> being able to generate a trajectory from within 3D+t space that moves outside of
> it*, the implications COULD be profound. The hypothesis... OK, conjecture ;-)...
>
> anything truly essential missing from modern inquiries into high energy physics,
>
> These folks will always find (or invent) SOMETHING they can latch onto for this
> arguments rather than the previous bazillion.
>
> Best regards,
> Mike C.
>
> *Obviously, no set of vectors contained entirely within 3D+t space can
> mathematically add up to a result ending outside of it. However, it might be
> possible to generate a physical phenomenon which could INTERACT with an existing
> extra-dimensional event or, perhaps, to produce an event whose nature defies
>
A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
what can be known.
A religious zealot will tell you that a single book contains All and
Everything that is True, as well as Ultimate Knowlege of the Universe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Date: 26 Sep 2011 21:15:29
Message: <4e8123b1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
> what can be known.
I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
there is one).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).
If there isn't, there is no fraction.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Date: 27 Sep 2011 14:05:47
Message: <4e82107b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:05:38 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>
> If there isn't, there is no fraction.
Mathematically, that's certainly true. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alain
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Date: 27 Sep 2011 15:47:19
Message: <4e822847@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).
>
> Jim
OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
