Try this. An observer looks out a small distance at two lasers one pointing East and the other west. The lasers are turned on so as to emit a photon beam each. The observer sees one going at the speed of light in one direction and the other going in the opposite direction at the speed of light also. So he observes the distance between them increasing at twice the speed of light. Or not ?

If he hops on the one photon and travels along with it what does he see. Will the light from this other laser catch up to him. What if he carries a laser along with him and fires it in the direction of the receding laser--what will he see. What if he fires it in the same direction as he is traveling ?

... I went to a great deal of trouble to explain one of my discoveries. I explained in simple mans language exactly how and why black holes are a mathematical error. But ...

If you remember, I was one of the people giving you a chance and following your posts. Sorry, but you never got beyond the wild claims before taking a leaping jump of faith straight to the "trust in god" excuse.

So far, you have made wild claims. We await to see any substance.


Keep searchin',
Martin

But Martin,
Thats what this thread is all about. CERN just said they recorded something going faster than the speed of light. And i posted that in a message here 5 months ago; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=63460&nowrap=true#1094188

So CERN just scientifically confirmed one of my claims. You can deny it all you want. You can brush it off and say that Johnney Guinness guessed it. Its easy to dismiss what i wrote down. But the fact remains, i posted it into a message 5 months ago that 3x10^8 m/s is NOT the speed of light.

Over the next few months, one by one, scientists around the world are going to confirm more and more of the things i posted here in messages. Claims i made that i simply could not know........unless God told me!

John.

---

Thats what this thread is all about. CERN just said they recorded something going faster than the speed of light. And i posted that in a message here 5 months ago; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=63460&nowrap=true#1094188

No, CERN stated that they have particles that have traveled faster than the speed of light, which is impossible according to what we know about physics. This is different than claiming the speed of light is not what it is.

Over the next few months, one by one, scientists around the world are going to confirm more and more of the things i posted here in messages. Claims i made that i simply could not know........unless God told me!

Your claims were so vague, and now you're attempting to piggy-back your predictions to scientific findings which we don't fully understand yet - but they don't confirm your claims either.

Nice try, Johnney.

There are two main conditions that resulted this discovery that currently no single country dare to attempt they are 60 billion dollar ring toy and megawatts and megawatts of energy supply. (maybe gigawatts not sure)

---

Mandtugai!

Awaiting confirmation by other labs to recreate the result. Any bets out there ?

I am betting on a retraction. It would be more interesting if this turned out to be repeatable.

Stay Tuned

There will be a race to prove or disprove this result, e.g. MINOS at Fermilab and T2K in Japan. The prize is the Nobel prize.
Tullio

---

the speed of light was the fastest known speed. I am not aware of any proof that photons were the fastest thing in the universe, it was just presumed so.

two thoughts.

1: We're so sorry, Uncle Albert
2: Either we need to give these particles a ticket for speeding, or raise the speed limit.

---

Janice

Try this. An observer looks out a small distance at two lasers one pointing East and the other west. The lasers are turned on so as to emit a photon beam each. The observer sees one going at the speed of light in one direction and the other going in the opposite direction at the speed of light also. So he observes the distance between them increasing at twice the speed of light. Or not ?

That depends on your "observed". You can equally claim that for a radar beam that is swept across the sky, that for some distance along the beam, the lateral speed of the end of the beam exceeds the speed of light... (Actually it does in an abstract sense. In reality the transmitted photons propagate along the beam as always, you just get gaps between when photons are seen on the line of the arc being swept. So you see discrete photons radiating out along straight line paths like the spokes of a wheel. The spokes of photons get further apart as you move further out.)

The two laser beams each propagate away at the speed of light relative to the observer. In an abstract sense, you have x2 the speed of light for the photons propagating along the opposing beams.

If he hops on the one photon and travels along with it what does he see. Will the light from this other laser catch up to him. What if he carries a laser along with him and fires it in the direction of the receding laser--what will he see. What if he fires it in the same direction as he is traveling ?

It is all relative. His new frame of reference with respect to himself will mean that he can see neither beam of light. One will be at an infinite wavelength, the other would forever remain outside his cone of causality to never be seen.


More of a question is whether there is any 'absolute' frame of reference. So far, an 'aether' for light has been disproven.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

A question I have always been wondering about is the speed of gravity. Gravity seems to be a property of mass, but if you move a planet from one location to another, does the gravity get dragged along with it, or does it recombine at the speed of light? Gravity is supposed to me carried by the graviton, a massless particle, but I am not aware of any experiments to measure the speed, as gravity is still a bit undefined.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

A question I have always been wondering about is the speed of gravity. Gravity seems to be a property of mass, but if you move a planet from one location to another, does the gravity get dragged along with it, or does it recombine at the speed of light? Gravity is supposed to me carried by the graviton, a massless particle, but I am not aware of any experiments to measure the speed, as gravity is still a bit undefined.

Very good musing. There is rather a lot about the 'speed of gravity'...

The biggest problem often is what is actually meant! There are various aspects about the effect of gravity...

My understanding is that for such as a planet orbiting the sun, that works fine using the assumption that gravity acts 'instantaneously' because the gravity (gravitational field) is 'already there'.

What propagates at the speed of light are any changes to that gravitational field.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The Gran Sasso lab is 1.4km underground. CERN is also underground.

I wonder if allowance has been made for the depth of the labs along with the curvature of the Earth...

That is, the straight line path for the neutrinos will be slightly shorter than what the GPS measurements will indicate for the surface distance (or even for the straight line distance) between the surface access points. Assuming that GPS coordinates for the surface points have been used...

Keep searchin',
Martin


(Special note to Johnny Guinness: Note that I've made exact claims detailing how and why for my guess above. A bit like a cooking recipe. Your claim for comparison would be that vaguely they've merely 'just got something wrong (or not)' for that example. See the difference in detail? So... What is your 'true speed of light' and why?)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The speed of the neutrinos, in excess of that of light, was apparently proportional to the energy of the particles; more energetic ones faster, less energetic, slower. This suggests that neutrinos might be driven to arbitrarily high speeds above that of light, given sufficient energy. If the results of this experiment are confirmed, special relativity would seem to be in very serious trouble. *Any* speed in excess of that of light implies one of two things. 1.) Backward movement through time, from at least from some points of view, and causality violations, which seems logically absurd, or 2.) An overriding frame of reference, which is the antithesis of relativity. Michael

A question I have always been wondering about is the speed of gravity. Gravity seems to be a property of mass, but if you move a planet from one location to another, does the gravity get dragged along with it, or does it recombine at the speed of light? Gravity is supposed to me carried by the graviton, a massless particle, but I am not aware of any experiments to measure the speed, as gravity is still a bit undefined.

Steve

Since we have yet to measure gravity waves, crunch for Einstein@home.

But we know about frame dragging from the orbit of Mercury and it matches Einstein's Theory to several decimal places.

---

The Gran Sasso lab is 1.4km underground. CERN is also underground.

I wonder if allowance has been made for the depth of the labs along with the curvature of the Earth...

That is, the straight line path for the neutrinos will be slightly shorter than what the GPS measurements will indicate for the surface distance (or even for the straight line distance) between the surface access points. Assuming that GPS coordinates for the surface points have been used...

Keep searchin',
Martin

They have used an advanced GPS. I saw the slides during the webcast.
Tullio

---

Among these excitements one thing is missing that since the top speed is not constant that means Seti, Einstein, Milky way all dc projects are kind of missing some information from space.

There possibly some more accelerated information carrying particles being passing undetected all the earth based traditional means optics antennas everything.

So everybody likely going back to drawing board.

---

Mandtugai!

The Gran Sasso lab is 1.4km underground. CERN is also underground.

I wonder if allowance has been made for the depth of the labs along with the curvature of the Earth...

That is, the straight line path for the neutrinos will be slightly shorter than what the GPS measurements will indicate for the surface distance (or even for the straight line distance) between the surface access points. Assuming that GPS coordinates for the surface points have been used...

Keep searchin',
Martin

They have used an advanced GPS. I saw the slides during the webcast.
Tullio

I would doubt that the Sasso lab scientist would make such obvious mistakes. There is a thing called calibration and no scientist these days would fail to calibrate his equipment first prior to carrying out such delicate experiments.
To my mind since these SASSO scientists have spent at least three months checking their results and still found them sound indicates to me that it's looking good for a "thumbs-up" on their findings.

No, they have spent three years in calibrating all their instruments with the help of German and Swiss metrology institutes. The chief scientist, prof Ereditato, teaches at Bern University in Switzerland. I have two Swiss watches, a Tissot Touch and a Swatch. The Swiss timekeeping is an art.
Tullio

---

No, they have spent three years in calibrating all their instruments with the help of German and Swiss metrology institutes. The chief scientist, prof Ereditato, teaches at Bern University in Switzerland. I have two Swiss watches, a Tissot Touch and a Swatch. The Swiss timekeeping is an art.
Tullio

Tullio, do you mean three years after the experiment was completed?

Tullio, do you mean three years after the experiment was completed?

I believe the experiment was done many times during a three year period. Since the result was always astonishing, they checked and rechecked their equipment to eliminate any possible systematic error. When they were secure enough, they published this result, which awaits confirmation by other laboratories.
Tullio

---

Tullio, do you mean three years after the experiment was completed?

I believe the experiment was done many times during a three year period. Since the result was always astonishing, they checked and rechecked their equipment to eliminate any possible systematic error. When they were secure enough, they published this result, which awaits confirmation by other laboratories.
Tullio

I get the feeling here Tullio that this experiment was carried out to prove a theory. Someone knew what the results would be and have been meticulous in their experimental procedures here to make certain that every aspect of this experiment was accurate and precise. As you know Tullio I believe their results to be sound and proven just like you do. Others are more skeptical about the results because their science bodies have been experimenting with these neutrinos for many years and have failed to gain much from their research that could be considered valuable in results. I think also that some of these scientific bodies have been numbed by this discovery and my reasons for saying this I shall keep to my self.