[OT] Speed of Light

On 11/20/11 21:06, Davey Crockett wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html

The obvious answer is to get WADA to test the neutrinos. Its probably
just Spanish beef and the problem will go away if you ban them.

Phil H wrote:
The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
something else to do.

Like go ride your bike.

On 21/11/2011 09:25, Simply Fred wrote:
atriage wrote:
Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about
just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that
*appears* to be able to travel c.

That can't be possible. Nothing is supposed to have more mass that a fully
kitted out FM.

Not much danger of one of them varmints exceeding c though.

--

On 21/11/2011 00:57, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael wrote:

In ,
Davey wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s.../Speed-of-ligh...

An experiment was performed. What reliable
inferences can be made remains to be seen.

We'll know next Tuesday

You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
with CERN to get the message on Monday.


Great, post the result immediately and I'll look forward (or do I mean
backward?) to receiving it on Sunday.


--

On Nov 21, 2:32*am, Simply Fred wrote:
Phil H wrote:
The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of
discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like
the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find
something else to do.

Like go ride your bike.

That's when this stuff gets comtemplated the most. Go ride your bike
and think about something else would be better advice. Do you think BL
rides his bike without thinking about LA? Good for him if he can do
it.
Phil H

In article ,
Steven Bornfeld wrote:

On 11/20/2011 7:57 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:33 pm, wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:10 pm, Michael wrote:

In ,
Davey wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s.../Speed-of-ligh...

An experiment was performed. What reliable
inferences can be made remains to be seen.

We'll know next Tuesday

You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
with CERN to get the message on Monday.

Fredmaster Ben


One hamburger, for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday.

You'll be hungry on Tuesday as well.

--
Old Fritz

Phil H wrote:
That's when this stuff gets comtemplated the most. Go ride your bike
and think about something else would be better advice. Do you think BL
rides his bike without thinking about LA? Good for him if he can do
it.

BL has a Lemond steel fork.

On Nov 20, 3:21*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:

If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that
for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed.

Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious
to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because
we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. *Of course,
mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite
generations of change.

You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but
the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. *The "laws" of physics are
simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding.

OTOH, who gives a ****? *None of it's real...

UD

UD, what a sad take on science. It strives to understand how the
universe works so it can predict outcomes; a very important ingredient
to technological development. Rather than being proved wrong, often a
more inclusive truth is discovered. In the case of Newton's laws of
motion, they work very well at lower velocities but not at velocities
approaching the speed of light. Hence Einstein's more inclusive
special relativity.
Phil 'I give a ****' H

Uncle wrote:
OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real...

Phil H wrote:
In the case of Newton's laws of motion, they work very well at lower velocities but not at velocities
approaching the speed of light. Hence Einstein's more inclusive
special relativity.
Phil 'I give a ****' H

At least you don't find it bohring.

On 22/11/2011 21:26, Phil H wrote:

Phil 'I give a ****' H

Good for you! I suspect you might still be relatively young. You'll
learn ;-)

UD