Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Soon you will all come to realize how distance and time really work.
Bwahahahahahaha (insert mad scientist sound here)
Bwahahahahahaha (insert mad scientist sound here)
The speed of light may have been broken.
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Motor Daddy swings... and it is again (or still) another miss.
I've been hitting homeruns since I was 8 years old. This is just another one...Yawn.
The amount of evidence needed to see a phenonena can be different for different people. Some people are more qualified and need less evidence while others need much more hand holding.
If you were in a position of authority in science , you will not want any system wide change that could impact your seat at the big table. Even if the change is truthul, there will be foot dragging until you have time to retool and consolidate that position. This is called political science. Often the memorizers of the traditions can't retool veryfast. One strategy is to never say there is enough evidence, allowing more and more time.
Because C has been exceeded, what I would do is require all existing theory, which assumes C is constant, will need to be resubmitted into the system like it is new. If old theory was given the same playing field as all the new theory, would it still be accepted again, knowing it has this major flawed assumption?
The answer is, it depends. Protecting traditions with the dual standard of a grandfather clause is one way to avoid the scientific method. I call this corruption in science, since the deck will remain stacked to help perpetuate obsolescence as long as possible.
Very interesting view point. But what the hell is C? If you are going to bring a constant you should at least define it, or no one will know what in the name of Oden you are talking about.
You brought up your box thing over in pseudo claiming it represented what relativity says. I offered to discuss your box with you provided you could demonstrate a mistake in the mathematics I'd provided which demonstrate the Lorentz transform of a light sphere is a light sphere. You went silent and didn't reply.I've been hitting homeruns since I was 8 years old. This is just another one...Yawn.
This is your problem, you don't listen or want to know what relativity actually says, you want to come up with your own straw man version of it. Then you try to knock that over. Whenever someone does actual relativity you try to change the subject to your own version of things. Your contention was that something I said relativity says you think it doesn't. I provided you with the mathematics you'll find in relativity textbooks and rather than discuss it you wanted to talk about your version of things, a classic straw man fallacy.
Would you like me to go through the light sphere thing again for you?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
My box does not represent what relativity says, nor did I ever claim that it did, quite the contrary as a matter of fact. My box refutes relativity. Pay attention AN, where have you been?
James R has already said that my concept of distance and time is self consistent and mathematically sound. His only objection was that there is my universe and Einstein's universe, and that experiment supports Einstein's universe. Well, in light of (pun intended)
the current experimental evidence, I'd say mine is looking pretty good now, and Einstein's is ready to be flushed, as it should have been at the very start. My concept is of absolute motion using a preferred frame, and that is what is required if the new experimental findings hold true. My box is simply irrefutable!I'd like you to tell me where my box is incorrect, even in light of the new findings?
Last edited:
Correct, the variation in neutrino velocity from c, in the 1987a data, was at most about 1/490,000,000 (3 hours/168,000 years). It was actually much closer to c than that (and most likely at c) because of the head-start the neutrinos received over the photons. While one might argue that it would take less than 3 hours for the core implosion energy to reach the surface of the star, and then start its race to Earth with the previously released neutrinos, I believe this has been fairly well presented previously in the astrophysics community to be a reasonable value. It seems plausible to me.
The volume of the star that actually underwent core implosion ('fusion' of proton and electron into neutron, with release of some neutrinos, i.e. neutron degeneracy) was likely on the order of 1-10 light-seconds in diameter. This compares to our sun (about 30 light-seconds in diameter) or Earth (about 100 times less, or about 1/4 light-second in diameter). Again, this is theoretical, but calculations of the energy released show such a volume at about 10 light-seconds.
Most of the neutrinos released are not from the proton/electron fusion. Rather, the energy of the degeneracy creates neutrino/anti-neutrino pairs of all 3 flavors, which travel in opposite direction (to conserve momentum). Most of the neutrinos released were therefore from this pair-production, which would have occured relatively simultaneously (to within a few seconds) within the volume of that imploding core, parts of which were closer to us by a few light-seconds.
So, the spread in arrival time of the neutrinos on Earth, measured at 13 seconds, is accounted almost entirely due to the different points of origin within the imploding core, and the few seconds it took for the pair-production to be completed. In other words, all of the neutrinos that travelled those 168,000 light years travelled at exactly the same speed without regard to their energy. I mentioned in post 185 that that was accurate to about 12 orders of magnitude; it is even higher than that when accounting for the diameter of the imploding core being several light-seconds, but I do not have exact figures on that.
So the 1987a data show both an extreme example of exactly the same flight of time without regard to energy, and a speed almost exactly equal to c to within far better than 1/500,000,000 as noted also by Only Me.
This data strongly suggests that neutrinos travel at light speed with energy and momentum, but no rest mass, as originally surmised; and not at slightly below c with some slight rest-mass, as has been the notion as of late (since flavor oscillation was recently detected).
The 1987a data is exactly opposite to the recent CERN results, which rely on numerous assumptions that could potentially affect their accuracy.
Tach seems to have assumed (in his posts to me) I had not read the report when I questioned the base-line distance. He seems to have believed that their reported 20 cm accuracy was a value I had not read when I commented on possible baseline inaccuracy. I had read it, but I did not necessarily believe it. They report that they measured the baseline to 20 cm accuracy using high-precision GPS. This is likely by something like the commercial Septentrio PolaRx2e system, which reports accuracy to about 100 cm. However, it places in a footnote that the accuracy depends upon environmental conditions (weather). That is why the military high-precision GPS reports accuracy to only about 2,200 cm http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html
In other words, while one might have high-precision (as in measuring earthquake displacement), if one does not account for different weather conditions between two distant points, the accuracy can be off significantly.
Since the CERN report provides no details on how they supposedly accurately measured the baseline, or what the weather was like at both locations at the time of measurement, their precision might be there, while the accuracy off by 18 meters (1,800 cm). It is simply not possible to tell from the CERN report.
Likewise, the CERN report mentions numerous sources of possible timing error. These total to about 18 nanosecond (including the 20 cm baseline distance variation that they equate to .67 nanoseconds). However, they do not provide error bars for these sources of timing error, and it is quite possible that they are all about double or triple the reported values within 1-2 standard deviations. If they are actually triple the reported value, that alone would account for the CERN result being reported as varying from c by about 1 part/40,000. Again, since this is not discussed in their report, one can only speculate.
In light of the extreme precision of the 1987a data, and the lack of discussion by CERN on their possible sources of error, I'm going to stick with known data and not some speculative claims.
Does anyone else have greater insight on this?
I think that you are mistaken - your universe does not correspond with the real universe.
Well, in light of (pun intended)
That is because you do not understand much if anything. IF a neutrino can move faster than light it would have no affect on the consistency of the the speed of light. Hence your box is still just a kitty litter box.
Nope. Experiemntal evidence once again refutes your box.
You mean the 40 or 50 times you been shown why your idea is wrong was not enough?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Distance and time are not negotiable! The universe doesn't care how you want it to work.
I never said the constancy of light was affected, as the speed of light is defined, not measured!
Wrong again, BUCKO! It is not possible to refute my box . My box is nothing more that the concept of distance and time, as they are defined.
I'd like you to point me to a link that has even once correctly refuted my claim. Just one! Saying it's wrong 40 or 50 times doesn't equate it to being
wrong. Prove mathematically that my box is wrong. I double dog dare you!
Last edited:
This is known as projecting.
No matter how many times you say this it always sounds just as stupid as the first time you said it.
It is impossible because you are clueless and unable to understand.
The key word is correctly. You do not appear to have the capacity to understand the concepts that refute your box, so it never seems correct to you. Anyone with a rudementary understanding of physics sees the obvious errors in your box.
I've been hitting homeruns since I was 8 years old. This is just another one...Yawn.
It's spelt hormones, stupid.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
It's better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Last edited:
Interesting.
You think this doesn't apply to you, somehow?
"Huh?"
I would choose my own delusions over someone elses anyday...
Last edited:
If you are claiming that the box represents a coordinate system, and the circle represents a segment of a lightspeed cone, then your diagram is incorrect. You have made Newtonian assumptions in a case where such assumptions are invalid.
?? It's basic relativity. Of course it's refutable. You cannot assume common frames when one frame is moving at close to the speed of light. Even at slower speeds the difference between inertial frames is measurable. (And indeed, experiments have confirmed this literally hundreds of times.)