nebula Posted September 24, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 24, 2011 viole, neutrinos are particles aren't they? We were talking about this at work and we assumed they are but no one knew enough about it to be sure. Yes, they are sub-atomic particles. They are smaller than electrons. That should satisfy you until Viole comes back with a more detailed description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 24, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,264 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,993 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 24, 2011 Oh, sorry Old Shep - "Snork!" is a the expression used for the sound one makes when one laughs through their nose. (You laugh, but your mouth is closed, so the sound comes out your nose somewhat.) Ususlly along with the coffee or soda you just tried to swollow. LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheya joie Posted September 24, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted September 24, 2011 I've also seen it spelled snerk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HisG Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) I am not a science/physics/mathematics freak like some others here BUT I am very interested to see how this all pans out - what the final analysis will conclude. Edited September 24, 2011 by HisG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted September 25, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 909 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,657 Content Per Day: 2.02 Reputation: 5,839 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2011 Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman did a research paper that listed the various speed of light ( that is, c.) tests over some 500 years. As the years passed the experiments improved and the margin of error grew smaller. The thing that is amazing is that c. has been on a rather exponential decrease in that small amount of time (500 years) even beyond all margins of error. Tracking the decay of c. back 7,000 years or so, c. was as much as 10,000,000 times faster than the current velocity. The evidence was too implicit of a young universe to be accepted in the bullied and badgered scientific community. The evolution overlords in science, education, and media were too well entrenched and fought so hard to force evolution on everyone to allow Setterfield's work to see the light of day and with much persecution. "Atoms can't this and cells won't that..." even on Christian boards you will find people who would rather crucify Setterfield than consider his work and the concrete evidence he shows. And now we see that c. can be surpassed proving that alleged barrier is no barrier at all. Barry Setterfield web cite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 25, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 Getting back on topic - How does observing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light challenge Einstein's theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 25, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 Ok, I see. Except for one thing - One has to actually be able to make something larger than a subatomic particle travel that fast for us to time travel, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldShep Posted September 25, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 137 Days Won: 6 Joined: 07/20/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/12/1950 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Ok, I see. Except for one thing - One has to actually be able to make something larger than a subatomic particle travel that fast for us to time travel, right? Yes, but it wold be theoretically possible to send messages to our past using neutrinos. Gee that would be great if I could send a message to myself and say something like, OK dummy, what on earth are you thinking, don't even think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agua Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Time travel is not possible, at least during my life time. I already arranged a meeting with my future self, but she did not turn up Maybe she didn't want to meet you. : p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted September 26, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 but it wold be theoretically possible to send messages to our past using neutrinos. Well, if the CERN scientists ever get a message from the future from themselves . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts