We can't really prove that the universe is infinite. In light of this, a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a calculator which allows you to compute many quantities, including distance, for different models of the universe and for galaxies at different "redshifts" from us (the redshift is an experimentally easy-to-determine property of the galaxy's light that tells us how much the universe has stretched between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received). Using the best observationally-determined values for the universe's rate of expansion, acceleration and other parameters (which are the default inputs for the calculator), I found that if you use a value of around 1.4 for z (the redshift), you get the required distance of 4,200 megaparsecs. Therefore, any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?
Uh, yes of course. And the scientists at CERN wouldn't ever think of that.Perhaps the neutrinos were accelerated to near the speed of light . . . . and Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction 'shortened' the distance of travel (relatively. of course!) . . . and the neutrinos "appeared" (to the observers) to arrive earlier than anticipated.
In the course of doing the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles showed up a few billionths of a second sooner than light would over the same distance.
Possibly because it was Pincho that posted it therefore it could because:Duplicate threads, yes, but why the hell is the other thread in Pseudoscience?
It's not Superman -- but the neutrino. Here's the claim:
"A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos - tiny particles that pervade the cosmos - were fired over a period of three years from CERN towards Gran Sasso 730 (500 miles) km away, where they were picked up by giant detectors.
Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds - or 60 billionths of a second - less than light beams would have taken."
(CERN scientists 'break the speed of light')
LOL...Any other possibility?Possibly because it was Pincho that posted it therefore it could because:
A) he's a crank and he's used to posting in Pseudosci, or
B) he's a crank a considers real science to be Pseudosci, or
C) he's a crank and has no idea what he's doing.
Whoops, there was Einstein's universe and my universe. His is proven wrong, and mine keeps on ticking!
It is not necessary if at the same time send light and compare the time of arrival (the difference between them).How did they synchronize their clocks?
So basically it's a reversal on the ole "kill the messenger when you don't like the message"?Possibly because it was Pincho that posted it therefore it could because:
A) he's a crank and he's used to posting in Pseudosci, or
B) he's a crank a considers real science to be Pseudosci, or
C) he's a crank and has no idea what he's doing.
It's been reported in at least two UK papers (the other thread has a link), and no, the Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers not Murdoch.This was a UK new paper article anyway, anyone know if Murdock owns it?
Huh?So basically it's a reversal on the ole "kill the messenger when you don't like the message"?
You're presuming that he posted it originally in Pseudoscience? Maybe you're right but I had presumed it got moved there.Huh?
All I did was posit possibilities for Pincho choosing to post the other thread in Pseudosci.
You'll have to ask him to get the actual reason.