The speed of light may have been broken.

[Me-Ki-Gal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/sep/24/1?commentpage=3#start-of-comments

"I received a comment on this piece from Luca Stanco, a senior member of the Opera collaboration (who also worked on the ZEUS experiment with me several years ago). He points out that although he is a member of Opera, he did not sign the arXiv preprint because while he supported the seminar and release of results, he considers the analysis "preliminary" due at least in part to worries like those I describe, and that it has been presented as being more robust than he thinks it is. Four other senior members of Opera also removed their names from the author list for this result."

Did you go to Mcgregor law school in Sacramento Walter ? My step brother is a practicing Attorney in Sacramento , Jimmy Rouse be his name. Hot shot !
Speculation from a Mad Man ( Dirty Hog nuggets ) :
maybe there is no curvature of space with a neutrino like with light . To say neutrinos find a sorter distance between 2 points . Not that they go any faster than light but they find a shorter distance between 2 points . They don't follow the curvature of space . As the bird fly so to speak .

 

[billvon]

There is only the absolute frame in which light travels. When light is emitted it travels in the absolute frame. The origin of the light sphere remains at the center of the light sphere. Can you dispute that?

Easily. Several experiments have been done with moving frames at different speeds. In all cases the expanding sphere of light hits equdistant detectors at the same time. Sometimes these tests have been run intentionally (i.e. for purposes of experimentation) but most are run every day by orbiting satellites; GPS satellites in particular rely on the fact that lightspeed propagation is invariant in any frame.

 

[Motor Daddy]

If his frame of reference is the box, the he knows nothing of the experience to which you refer.

Actually, what I am saying is that if I was in the box, taking the box as my frame of reference, that I would really be clueless of the absolute frame, and I would be simply living in an illusion in my box, clueless of the absolute frame. Clueless as to how far I moved the chair in my box in the absolute frame. I would simply be living in my own illusion in my box, thinking I really only moved the chair 10 feet, ignorant to the fact that the chair moved, say 128,000 meters in the absolute frame, in the time it took me to move the chair what appeared to be 10 feet in my illusion.

 

[Tach]

Actually, what I am saying is that if I was in the box, taking the box as my frame of reference, that I would really be clueless of the absolute frame, and I would be simply living in an illusion in my box, clueless of the absolute frame. Clueless as to how far I moved the chair in my box in the absolute frame. I would simply be living in my own illusion in my box, thinking I really only moved the chair 10 feet, ignorant to the fact that the chair moved, say 128,000 meters in the absolute frame, in the time it took me to move the chair what appeared to be 10 feet in my illusion.

Clueless. Period. Ignorant. Period.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Easily. Several experiments have been done with moving frames at different speeds. In all cases the expanding sphere of light hits equdistant detectors at the same time. Sometimes these tests have been run intentionally (i.e. for purposes of experimentation) but most are run every day by orbiting satellites; GPS satellites in particular rely on the fact that lightspeed propagation is invariant in any frame.

So in a moving frame, light travels faster and slower depending on which direction you measure it?

 

[billvon]

that I would really be clueless of the absolute frame, and I would be simply living in an illusion in my box, clueless of the absolute frame. Clueless as to how far I moved the chair in my box in the absolute frame. I would simply be living in my own illusion in my box, thinking I really only moved the chair 10 feet, ignorant to the fact that the chair moved, say 128,000 meters in the absolute frame, in the time it took me to move the chair what appeared to be 10 feet in my illusion.

That's not what your box drawing indicated. A moving observer could fire off a flash in the center of his box and observe that it hit the advancing back wall first - if your box drawing was correct. It is not; the observer would see the flash hit all sides of the box at the same time, thus making him think that he was not moving. This is the flaw in your drawing.

 

[billvon]

So in a moving frame, light travels faster and slower depending on which direction you measure it?

No. To an observer in the same frame as the experimental apparatus, light always moves at the same speed. Michelson-Morley was the first experiment to prove this over 100 years ago.

 

[Motor Daddy]

That's not what your box drawing indicated. A moving observer could fire off a flash in the center of his box and observe that it hit the advancing back wall first - if your box drawing was correct. It is not; the observer would see the flash hit all sides of the box at the same time, thus making him think that he was not moving. This is the flaw in your drawing.

So we perform the test and the light reaches the receivers at the same time. I then attach a rocket engine to the box and accelerate the box. Once the acceleration has ceased and the box is maintaining a constant velocity (different than the first test velocity of the box), I perform the test again, and low and behold, the light hits all the receivers at the same time again, is that what you are proclaiming??

 

[Motor Daddy]

No. To an observer in the same frame as the experimental apparatus, light always moves at the same speed. Michelson-Morley was the first experiment to prove this over 100 years ago.

Wrong, Einstein uses time dilation and length contraction, with a different clock sync method. Einstein doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity, as all the other boxes have a velocity, but his box is ALWAYS at rest.

 

[OnlyMe]

Did you go to Mcgregor law school in Sacramento Walter ? My step brother is a practicing Attorney in Sacramento , Jimmy Rouse be his name. Hot shot !
Speculation from a Mad Man ( Dirty Hog nuggets ) :
maybe there is no curvature of space with a neutrino like with light . To say neutrinos find a sorter distance between 2 points . Not that they go any faster than light but they find a shorter distance between 2 points . They don't follow the curvature of space . As the bird fly so to speak .

There may be some merit here in that a neutrino's interaction with gravity has not or cannot be tested and observed. It remains an aspect of the theoretical origins of the neutrino. If a neutrino does exceed c, perhaps it also evades the curvature of space due to gravitation! However, I am not sure the curvature associated with the distance between CERN and GRAN SASSO would account for the CERN data reported.

 

[billvon]

So we perform the test and the light reaches the receivers at the same time. I then attach a rocket engine to the box and accelerate the box. Once the acceleration has ceased and the box is maintaining a constant velocity (different than the first test velocity of the box), I perform the test again, and low and behold, the light hits all the receivers at the same time again, is that what you are proclaiming??

Yes - and this is what tests have proven. You cannot use a speed-of-light measurement to determine your speed; from your perspective in the box, as long as you're not accelerating, you are always at rest. The light always hits all four sides at the same time.

Wrong, Einstein uses time dilation and length contraction, with a different clock sync method. Einstein doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity, as all the other boxes have a velocity, but his box is ALWAYS at rest.

You're getting close, yes! FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE his box is always at rest - even if it is actually moving.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Yes - and this is what tests have proven. You cannot use a speed-of-light measurement to determine your speed; from your perspective in the box, as long as you're not accelerating, you are always at rest. The light always hits all four sides at the same time.

No the light does not always hit the sides at the same time. Light travel time is distance. If light travels for 1 second it traveled 299,792,458 meters.

If light travels for 1 second, and the source travels for the same second, the light will NOT be 299,792,458 meters from the source at t=1. The only time light would be 299,792,458 meters from the source at t=1 is IF the source had an absolute zero velocity. You saying light always reaches the receivers in the same amount of time, regardless of the speed of the box is saying light travels at different speeds depending on the speed of the box. That is absurd!

You're getting close, yes! FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE his box is always at rest - even if it is actually moving.

Too bad velocity isn't based on perspective, huh? Velocity is distance and time. Time is measured with clocks and distance is defined as light travel time. So where does perspective come into play?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It would appear MD's claims about SR's consistency can be summed up as :

"SR is not consistent because it isn't MD's version of things".

MD, why do you persist in not replying to simple responses I give and questions I ask? Why aren't you able to address any of the algebra? You practically demanded it and now you don't respond to it. You obviously thought no reply would come and now you've put your foot in it. At least admit it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

It would appear MD's claims about SR's consistency can be summed up as :

"SR is not consistent because it isn't MD's version of things".

MD, why do you persist in not replying to simple responses I give and questions I ask? Why aren't you able to address any of the algebra? You practically demanded it and now you don't respond to it. You obviously thought no reply would come and now you've put your foot in it. At least admit it.

You haven't refuted the box. All you have is a box that never moves, which we both know is absurd! All objects are in motion so there is no object that is "at rest."

Tell you what, AN, first you tell me your concept of at rest. "At rest" compared to what?

 

[adoucette]

So Motor Daddy, when are you going to publish your paper demolishing Einstein's theory?

 

[Motor Daddy]

So Motor Daddy, when are you going to publish your paper demolishing Einstein's theory?

The world isn't ready for the truth yet.

bwahahahahahahaha

 

[origin]

You haven't refuted the box. All you have is a box that never moves, which we both know is absurd! All objects are in motion so there is no object that is "at rest."

Tell you what, AN, first you tell me your concept of at rest. "At rest" compared to what?

This is Motor Daddy's consistent MO, when he is cornered and realizes he will have to admit defeat he will ask question after question trying to derail conversation.

Look how many times he says, "I'll answer your question after you answer mine", or "first answer my question".

Pitiful.

 

[adoucette]

The world isn't ready for the truth yet.

bwahahahahahahaha

Translation:

Never, I'm just a troll.

 

[Motor Daddy]

This is Motor Daddy's consistent MO, when he is cornered and realizes he will have to admit defeat he will ask question after question trying to derail conversation.

Look how many times he says, "I'll answer your question after you answer mine", or "first answer my question".

Pitiful.

What's pitifull is you don't even have a concept of "at rest."

Here is the scenario you accept as truth:

A source emits light in space. Regardless of the velocity of the source, the light will always be 299,792,458 meters away from the source 1 second later.







This is how it works in reality:

You would not be going back in time if you traveled faster than light towards the star.

Say the star was 100 light years away from you. It emitted light in the year 1911, and the light arrived at your position in the year 2011. Just as the light reached you you started traveling towards the star at 2c. As you traveled towards the star, you would be encountering younger and younger light from the star that was emitted after the original light that emitted in 1911 that reached you when you started traveling.

When you get to within 50 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 25 years, and traveled a distance of 50 light years. So the year is 2036, and the light that hits you there was emitted 50 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 1986.

When you get to within 25 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 12.5 more years (37.5 total), and traveled a distance of 25 light years (75 light years total). So the year is 2048.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 25 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 2023.5.

When you get to within 1 light year of the star, you will have traveled for 12 more years (49.5 total), and traveled a distance of 24 light years (99 light years total). So the year is 2060.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 1 year ago, so the light left the star in the year 2059.5.

When you get to the star, you will have traveled for .5 more years (50 years total), and traveled a distance of 1 light year (100 light years total). So the year is 2061, which is 50 years later than when you left in 2011, because you traveled for 50 years.

 

[billvon]

No the light does not always hit the sides at the same time.

You keep saying that, but experimental evidence proves you wrong. Google Michelson-Morley.

You saying light always reaches the receivers in the same amount of time, regardless of the speed of the box is saying light travels at different speeds depending on the speed of the box. That is absurd!

It is hard to understand, yes. But it is one of the central results of SR.

Too bad velocity isn't based on perspective, huh? Velocity is distance and time.

Correct! And both distance and time change depending on your velocity.

Time is measured with clocks . . .

And experiments show that clocks run slower or faster depending on speed!