No Fine for Breaking the Speed Limit of Light

[Paul98]

Are you willing to restate your claim, armed with information about how wrong you are?

I stand by my claim, did you even bother to read the article and the headline?

 

[silverpig]

No, the report was from Reuters. Almost all of their reports are from the AP or Reuters.

So unless he, and you, are saying both Reuters and the AP are horrible, you are wrong.

I know, I know, it is easier to say groups who report about things you want to stay hidden are horrible...

I'm saying FoxNews is shit in general. So he's right.

Doesn't matter where this story came from.

 

[Paul98]

No, the report was from Reuters. Almost all of their reports are from the AP or Reuters.

So unless he, and you, are saying both Reuters and the AP are horrible, you are wrong.

I know, I know, it is easier to say groups who report about things you want to stay hidden are horrible...

Actually most science articles written by the press ARE horrible, and have very little to do with the actual science. fox news is the worst as half the "science" they have on that site is religion or entertainment.

 

[cybrsage]

I stand by my claim, did you even bother to read the article and the headline?

The one written by Reuters that you bashed FoxNews over? Yes, I did. Apparently, you did not.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm saying FoxNews is shit in general. So he's right.

Doesn't matter where this story came from.

Actually most science articles written by the press ARE horrible, and have very little to do with the actual science. fox news is the worst as half the "science" they have on that site is religion or entertainment.

You two are funny. It does not matter who actually created the story, if FoxNews reprints it then it is horrible.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...vel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?hpt=hp_c2

Are you going to now say CNN is just as bad as Fox for posting the same thing, or do they get a free pass?

 

[silverpig]

You two are funny. It does not matter who actually created the story, if FoxNews reprints it then it is horrible.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...vel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?hpt=hp_c2

Are you going to now say CNN is just as bad as Fox for posting the same thing, or do they get a free pass?

Re-read my post. FoxNews just sucks in general. They could post a great story, but posting one great story does not make up for the rest of the suckage.

 

[sonambulo]

Great thread, but it still doesn't explain how is babby formed.

 

[cybrsage]

Re-read my post. FoxNews just sucks in general. They could post a great story, but posting one great story does not make up for the rest of the suckage.

Ah, so you say FoxNews has great stories, but they suck anyway. You really like not making sense, don't you?

Admit it, you are a bigot. Once you admit that, whatever bigotted things you say are understandable.

 

[cybrsage]

Great thread, but it still doesn't explain how is babby formed.

When Mommy Neutrino and Daddy Neutrino really love each other, they kiss and a Baby Neutrino is made. Just like what happened with the Neutons to get Jimmy.

 

[silverpig]

Ah, so you say FoxNews has great stories, but they suck anyway. You really like not making sense, don't you?

Admit it, you are a bigot. Once you admit that, whatever bigotted things you say are understandable.

They could re-post a good story and they would still suck. They could write a great story and it wouldn't make up for all the other shit they pull. They just, suck.

 

[Darwin333]

Lmao, only on P&N can an ap story about science get derailed into a fox news bashing thread. Bravo

 

[cybrsage]

They could re-post a good story and they would still suck. They could write a great story and it wouldn't make up for all the other shit they pull. They just, suck.

Does this mean you are admitting you are a bigot? Your post says you are a bigot, but direct confirmation would be appreciated.

 

[cybrsage]

Lmao, only on P&N can an ap story about science get derailed into a fox news bashing thread. Bravo

 

[JACKHAMMER]

My experience is that politics and religion usually end up in a shitstorm...and then science is included because [/b]scientism[/b] is more of a religion than it is actual science (scientism is the faith based belief that science can and will answer all possible questions). It usually just ends up being evolution vs creation debates anyway.

Science is not a religion, it's based on empirical evidence. Religions are based on faith, not evidence. There is a vast difference between the two. What you are describing is the paradigm that because we live in the real world, which can be tested, eventually when given enough data we will be able to explain, in quantifiable ways, the world around us.

 

[cybrsage]

Science is not a religion, it's based on empirical evidence. Religions are based on faith, not evidence. There is a vast difference between the two. What you are describing is the paradigm that because we live in the real world, which can be tested, eventually when given enough data we will be able to explain, in quantifiable ways, the world around us.

No, what I am describing is the school of thought that scienc will be able to answer all questions. Just like I said, Scientism. It is a faith based belief. This is because science is designed to only handle things in the natural universe. Things outside of that fall outside the scope of science.

Science also cannot, and never will, tell me why I prefer one type of art over another. It cannot tell why I hate iced tea but every other member of my family loves it. Yes, it can tell me what I hate about it, but not why.

Science cannot tell us if a supernatural (outside the realm of the natural universe) exists or not. This, again, is outside the scope of science.

Science has a boundary set on it for good reason, it only works within that boundary. It works wonderfully there, and it an amazingly great toolset to have. Outside that boundary, it fails miserably.

As an aside, science uses faith as well, only it is called base assumptions. One such assumption is that the rules of the universe we currently see have been that way since their initial creations, moments after the universe began. We have no way to prove or disprove this. We need to have a base to begine with, though, so it is a good assumption to make. Without it, nothing can be done. It is still a faith based item, though. It is assumed to be true without any supporting evidence.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Cool, would like to see this moved to highly technical. See what the people who have knowledge of something beyond talking points have to say.

It already is :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32591716&postcount=34
I took the liberty yesterday to post about the second experiment.

There also is a thread in off topic :
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2193512&highlight=neutrino+light

 

[dmcowen674]

It's extremely obvious beings other than us use neutrinos running beyond the speed of light.

We are just still in the dark.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It's extremely obvious beings other than us use neutrinos running beyond the speed of light.

We are just still in the dark.

Of course we are still in the dark.
But as long as there will always be a scientist willing to defy the current scientific consensus, humans will scientifically prevail. It is the obvious exception. The one who knows how to differentiate from the masses while continuing to be a part of the masses.

 

[cybrsage]

It's extremely obvious beings other than us use neutrinos running beyond the speed of light.

We are just still in the dark.

I see what you did there...

 

[JACKHAMMER]

No, what I am describing is the school of thought that scienc will be able to answer all questions. Just like I said, Scientism. It is a faith based belief. This is because science is designed to only handle things in the natural universe. Things outside of that fall outside the scope of science.

Science also cannot, and never will, tell me why I prefer one type of art over another. It cannot tell why I hate iced tea but every other member of my family loves it. Yes, it can tell me what I hate about it, but not why.

Science cannot tell us if a supernatural (outside the realm of the natural universe) exists or not. This, again, is outside the scope of science.

Science has a boundary set on it for good reason, it only works within that boundary. It works wonderfully there, and it an amazingly great toolset to have. Outside that boundary, it fails miserably.

As an aside, science uses faith as well, only it is called base assumptions. One such assumption is that the rules of the universe we currently see have been that way since their initial creations, moments after the universe began. We have no way to prove or disprove this. We need to have a base to begine with, though, so it is a good assumption to make. Without it, nothing can be done. It is still a faith based item, though. It is assumed to be true without any supporting evidence.

I half agree with you, of course science cannot describe the supernatural (of there is even such a thing). Science describes the natural world, and by definition not the supernatural one.

I think it is a far stretch to compare the assumptions science makes (that natural laws are consistent through time) with the amount of faith required in the jeudo-christian world view. They are not even close to the same. One is a worldview based in reality, the other one in the supernatural.

 

[cybrsage]

I half agree with you, of course science cannot describe the supernatural (of there is even such a thing). Science describes the natural world, and by definition not the supernatural one.

Yep, which means it cannot answer everything, which is why I classify scientism as a faith based belief system. It is also illogical, since science was never designed to answer all questions. I think it is an amazing tool, when used properly...and a dangerous one when not.

I think it is a far stretch to compare the assumptions science makes (that natural laws are consistent through time) with the amount of faith required in the jeudo-christian world view. They are not even close to the same. One is a worldview based in reality, the other one in the supernatural.

Agreed, but only in the amount of faith needed. Faith is needed for any assumption, even if it sounds logical and other choices are not good choices. I was just stating the obvious for those who say science does not require faith.

Science and religion are two vastly different things. I hate it when people interrelate the two (not saying you are). Science is the how, religion is the why (with regards to the universe, life, etc). Science cannot explain the meaning of life, for example, but religion can. Science can tell us how life works, though, how it slowly evolves, etc.

To me, science is a wonderful tool. What better way to gain a greater understanding of the Creator than to study the creation (barring direct conversations with the Creator, of course).

 

[piasabird]

So is this the experiment where they measured the time via satelite GPS measurements?

If it is there some kind of miscalculations between space because the satelite is moving and it causes a miscalculation of time. Not only is the satelite moving but so is the earth. My Son, who is a Physics major says that using GPS measurements has some flaws.

 

[Paul98]

Yep, which means it cannot answer everything, which is why I classify scientism as a faith based belief system. It is also illogical, since science was never designed to answer all questions. I think it is an amazing tool, when used properly...and a dangerous one when not.

Science isn't faith based it's observation, test, reason based. The reason why we believe things will work the way they will isn't based on faith but the observations we have and the tests we have done. Do you have faith that if you drop a ball here on earth it will fall down? The reason you do is because you that's what you have seen happen before.

what questions can't science answer? You have talked about why you do or don't like something, but that is your brain chemistry,and many many other factors. With certain disruptions and changes it can be made so that you think very differently. As for the question of "why" what are you really asking? Much of these why questions are what drives science in the first place.

One other thing what are these "supernatural" things that science can't study? It almost seems that if the "supernatural" exists that would make it natural, and if it exists it would also be able to be studied. But then again we already have the strangeness of the quantum world which very few people actually understand. That should give us more than enough to think about for a long time to come.

 

[Paul98]

I am waiting to see a similar experiment to be done but with totally different equipment in a different place. I had heard that fermilab may be doing something like this next year, anyone know if i heard right?