Pbbbbbbt!
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results May Be Due to Bad Cables |
| 2012-02-23 |
| h/t Instapundit The sensational result that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light may be undone by nothing more than a simple mechanical error. Scientists from the OPERA collaboration at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy have “identified two issues that could significantly affect the reported result,” wrote OPERA spokesman Antonio Ereditato in an email. The first issue is a faulty connection of the fiber-optic cable bringing the GPS signal to the experiment’s master clock. The experiment’s GPS may also have been providing the wrong timestamps during synchronization between events. The difference between Big Science and bad science is not always obvious. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #5 Are they sure? * ION TELEGRAPH.UK > ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES [EMPS] EXPLAINED; + ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES IN HISTORY. * TOPIX > SOLAR CMES HITTING EARTH PRODUCING STRANGE SOUNDS? * LIVESCIENCE > SHRINKING SKY? CLOUD TOPS DROPPING CLOSER TO EARTH, NASA SATELLITE FINDS. On the surface, it would appear the Artics are describing the EMP dangers vee Iran + potens Nuclear Islamist, NGO Terror - INTENSIVE SOLAR ACTIVITIES GET BRIEF OR VERY GENERALIZED MENTION. WHICH IMO IS A MEDIA-, POLITICAL-DENIABLE WAY OF SAYING THE EMP THREAT AT QUESTION IS ACTUALLY VIA THE SUN. The Sun has been releasing massive waves of Gravity whcih has been interfering wid my observations + "bending/warping" various thingys. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-02-23 23:43 |
| #4 It's nearly always the cables or their connections that make my gizmos act up. Why should Big Physics be any different? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-23 16:11 |
| #3 Notice the difference between this and Climate Fraud: these guys are openly and publicly discussing experimental errors and what might be the cause. Just like some of us learned to do in high school science class. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-02-23 13:28 |
| #2 Pbbbbbbt! |
| Posted by: gorb 2012-02-23 11:52 |
| #1 In all fairness, they did say that these *may* have been the problem, not that there *were* the problem. What is important is if they fix these and do the experiment again. However, they must be careful in doing this, because the fix can often introduce anomalies on its own. For example, when Hansen of GISS did not like his actual results, he "fixed" (adjusted) them to conform with the results he wanted. This was not done "in good faith", but with intent to distort data. This is a major problem in experimental science, ignoring anomalies. For example, when Alexander Fleming discovered the contamination of his Petri dish experiment by a penicillin-generating mold, his first inclination was to discard it and start over. Fortunately for millions of people, he decided to investigate the anomaly. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-02-23 09:23 |