Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity [Update: Paper made the wrong - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32811268]So let's just keep pouring billions of dollars into science so we can find really fast particles OR Billions of dollars to feed starving people Human Life > Scientific Progress I know this post is a little... maybe much. But don't misunderstand, i'm not against progress, I just think that the amount of money that goes into science can easily go to other places and save people's lives. (If you're wondering why this crossed my mind, it's because my father works for aid organizations and I usually think about this stuff)[/QUOTE] yeah let's pour billions of dollars into corrupt african nations so the guys at the top can just siphon it off and the rest can die in the dirt see I can make things sound useless by using appropriate terms too we need to send aid to countries, but cutting science funding to meet this end is beyond retarded, science gets a paltry amount of money compared to say, military spending, not to mention the fact that scientists basically work for peanuts anyway despite being the driving force behind all technological progress, which is going to be vital if we want to uplift those third world nations at all look at it this way : the F-35 program will cost the US about 323 billion dollars. The entire Large Hadron Collider cost 9 billion dollars. If the US felt like it, we could have [B]THIRTY FIVE FUCKING LHCs[/B] not that thirty five LHCs would be much use (you only need the one), but that's the kind of money the military gets and could be being used on other projects such as aid in third world nations, scientific projects, improving infrastructure (creating jobs that don't require degrees in aeronautic engineering to do), health care... cutting science funding to free up funding for other things is like deleting the contents of My Documents to have enough space to install another steam game [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32811448]I'm sorry to say this but most, if not all major scientific breakthrough came from war. Microwaves and Radar came from war. The internet came from war (was developed originally as a US military network in the Cold War) Nuclear power plants came from war (it's heavily based on the research we did during the Manhattan Project) Almost all civilian technologies started from war applications, so saying we should cut military to boost science is ignorant at best I'm not saying war is good, I'm saying we need more funding for civilian [b]and[/b] military research[/QUOTE] yeah but this isn't some fundamental thing that we can't change the scientific advancements gained from war doesn't justify, you know, war

[QUOTE=Turnips5;32811543]yeah let's pour billions of dollars into corrupt african nations so the guys at the top can just siphon it off and the rest can die in the dirt see I can make things sound useless by using appropriate terms too we need to send aid to countries, but cutting science funding to meet this end is beyond retarded, science gets a paltry amount of money compared to say, military spending, not to mention the fact that scientists basically work for peanuts anyway despite being the driving force behind all technological progress, which is going to be vital if we want to uplift those third world nations at all look at it this way : the F-35 program will cost the US about 323 billion dollars. The entire Large Hadron Collider cost 9 billion dollars. If the US felt like it, we could have [B]THIRTY FIVE FUCKING LHCs[/B] not that thirty five LHCs would be much use (you only need the one), but that's the kind of money the military gets and could be being used on other projects such as aid in third world nations, scientific projects, improving infrastructure (creating jobs that don't require degrees in aeronautic engineering to do), health care... cutting science funding to free up funding for other things is like deleting the contents of My Documents to have enough space to install another steam game [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] yeah but this isn't some fundamental thing that we can't change the scientific advancements gained from war doesn't justify, you know, war[/QUOTE]I agree but only the threat of very possible war (like the Cold War, where no direct military combat actually occurred between the US and USSR) or some type of arms or technology race (like the Space Race) has the ability to get politicians to actually get stuff done, and bring funding to what's needed I'm not saying war is good but there's no denying some of the greatest things ever invented exist because of war

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32811603]I agree but only the threat of very possible war (like the Cold War, where no direct military combat actually occurred between the US and USSR) or some type of arms or technology race (like the Space Race) has the ability to get politicians to actually get stuff done, and bring funding to what's needed I'm not saying war is good but there's no denying some of the greatest things ever invented exist because of war[/QUOTE] sure, I think that needs to change though, it's not a sustainable thing to do, being warlike forever will only result in us getting fucked in the end [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] I think it is a massive shame that some of the coolest stuff we've ever invented was a direct result of war

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32811268]So let's just keep pouring billions of dollars into science so we can find really fast particles OR Billions of dollars to feed starving people Human Life > Scientific Progress I know this post is a little... maybe much. But don't misunderstand, i'm not against progress, I just think that the amount of money that goes into science can easily go to other places and save people's lives. (If you're wondering why this crossed my mind, it's because my father works for aid organizations and I usually think about this stuff)[/QUOTE] I wish we had done this in the past, so we wouldn't have the internet right now, seeing you and other simple-minded people trolling on FP /sarcasm.

We needed horses for transport. We got cars. We thought we couldn't fly. We got planes. We thought we would never go to space. We did. I doubt there's absolutely ANYTHING stopping us from going forward.

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32811268]So let's just keep pouring billions of dollars into science so we can find really fast particles OR Billions of dollars to feed starving people Human Life > Scientific Progress I know this post is a little... maybe much. But don't misunderstand, i'm not against progress, I just think that the amount of money that goes into science can easily go to other places and save people's lives. (If you're wondering why this crossed my mind, it's because my father works for aid organizations and I usually think about this stuff)[/QUOTE] Scientific progress almost universally produces a better life for everyone.

I just read about, the paper posted in the OP made wrong assumptions. The method used for the time compression via the two-way sattelite-link is well established and relativistic effects are taken into account during the measurement. Additionally, the Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Brunswick, checked the Gran Sasso measurements with two synchronised clocks and by the sattelite link.

[QUOTE=aVoN;32840355]I just read about, the paper posted in the OP made wrong assumptions. The method used for the time compression via the two-way sattelite-link is well established and relativistic effects are taken into account during the measurement. Additionally, the Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Brunswick, checked the Gran Sasso measurements with two synchronised clocks and by the sattelite link.[/QUOTE] Wait, they made the wrong assumption, but the method they used is well established and tested?

The [b]paper[/b] assumed, that the Opera Experiment used the method for syncing the clocks incorrectly. But they didn't. Also the paper does using Galilean velocity addition in one formula instead of the relativistic one. People from the PTB even mentioned, the author of the paper has no idea how the method Gran Sasso used works. So the puzzle still remains unsolved.

[QUOTE=aVoN;32843417]The [b]paper[/b] assumed, that the Opera Experiment used the method for syncing the clocks incorrectly. But they didn't. Also the paper does using Galilean velocity addition in one formula instead of the relativistic one. People from the PTB even mentioned, the author of the paper has no idea how the method Gran Sasso used works. So the puzzle still remains unsolved.[/QUOTE] What retards. Thanks for clearing that up, aVoN!

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32811448]Yes physics doesn't matter at all we should all remain ignorant and accept what we've been told about the universe from religions [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] I'm sorry to say this but most, if not all major scientific breakthrough came from war. Microwaves and Radar came from war. The internet came from war (was developed originally as a US military network in the Cold War) [b]No, it was a test of networks first made in our favourate place - CERN, it was used by the military, but they didn't invent it.[/b] Nuclear power plants came from war (it's heavily based on the research we did during the Manhattan Project) [b] Yes nuclear bombs, and techniques to get the fuel where developed in wartime, but the civillian uses of energy, and the basic principle of nucler science came after and before the war.[/b] Almost all civilian technologies started from war applications, so saying we should cut military to boost science is ignorant at best [b] A few thing where made in wartime for war applications, so war is good right [/b] I'm not saying war is good, I'm saying we need more funding for civilian [b]and[/b] military research but less funding for actual military shit (building even more tanks, guns, planes, ships, etc.)[/QUOTE] I say let's cut military funding.

[QUOTE=aVoN;32840355]I just read about, the paper posted in the OP made wrong assumptions. The method used for the time compression via the two-way sattelite-link is well established and relativistic effects are taken into account during the measurement. Additionally, the Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Brunswick, checked the Gran Sasso measurements with two synchronised clocks and by the sattelite link.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=aVoN;32843417]The [b]paper[/b] assumed, that the Opera Experiment used the method for syncing the clocks incorrectly. But they didn't. Also the paper does using Galilean velocity addition in one formula instead of the relativistic one. People from the PTB even mentioned, the author of the paper has no idea how the method Gran Sasso used works. So the puzzle still remains unsolved.[/QUOTE] I'm adding these posts to the OP and changing the title to something more fitting.