Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[Oracle_911]

Yes, if anything it is the E/M field that is affecting them. As for clock tests I do not put much faith into the results.
http://www.biochem.szote.u-szeged.hu/as ... hafele.htm

Yes this is it.

[Sparky]

A. G. Kelly PhD*,

Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.

1. Introduction

Hafele and Keating (1972) [1] (hereafter referred to as H & K) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aeroplanes, Eastward and Westward, around the Earth.

Recent university and other texts on Physics quote the tests e.g. Arfken et al (1989) [2], Beiser (1991) [3], Blatt (1992) [4], Cutnell and Johnson (1995) [5], Davies (1995) [6], Giancoli (1998) [7], Halliday et al (1997) [8], Ohanian (1989) [9] and Rindler (1991) [10]. A leader in Nature in 1972 [11] said that "the agreement between theory and experiment was most satisfactory". In the Science Citation Index their work has accumulated over 1000 references.

H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified.

It is also shown that the clocks used were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. The magnitude of the random alterations in performance, during the air transportation, were such as to make any result useless.

more details at http://www.biochem.szote.u-szeged.hu/as ... hafele.htm

A. G. Kelly, PhD, has given evidence that suggests strongly that scientific fraud was committed, and then supported by others after the fact. H&K could not have been so stupid nor ignorant of scientific procedures to have made some simple mistakes. But for those who blindly jumped onto this fraudulent train, and actually placed it in textbooks and taught it, they are guilty of gross incompetence.

This episode illustrates the dishonesty, cult like ignorance and incompetence that pervades physics.

[seasmith]

~
Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.



http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/ar ... /?p1=blogs

[sjw40364]

Yet if both clocks are synchronized by the same GPS then that error is already accounted for in the clock timings. Once the clocks are synchronized and the test is began, GPS no longer accounts for anything, IMO. Just another excuse to uphold relativity.

[JTR]

Did it have a tail wind or a head wind

[Goldminer]

Did it have a tail wind or a head wind

The probability is that it is a matter of breaking wind!

[MrAmsterdam]

“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine."

Nikola Tesla

-
-
-

News article NOVEMBER 1931, Every Day Science and Mechanics ;

news article 1931

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2010/12/ ... han-light/

Faster Than Light!

By HUGO GERNSBACK

IT may come as a shock, to most students of science, to learn that there are still in the world some scientists who believe that there are speeds greater than that of light.

Since the advent of Einstein, most scientists and physicists have taken it for granted that speeds greater than 186,300 miles per second are impossible in the universe. Indeed, one of the principal tenets of the relativity theory is that the mass of a body increases with its speed, and would become infinite at the velocity of light. Hence, a greater velocity is impossible.

Among those who deny that this is true, there is Nikola Tesla, well known for his hundreds of important inventions. The induction motor and the system of distributing alternating current are but a few of his great contributions to modern science. In 1892, he made his historic experiments in Colorado; where he manufactured, for the first time, artificial lightning bolts 100 feet long, and where he was able, by means of high-frequency currents, to light electric lamps at a distance of three miles without the use of any wires whatsoever.

Talking to me about these experiments recently, Dr. Tesla revealed that he had made a number of surprising discoveries in the high-frequency electric field and that, in the course of these experiments, he had become convinced that he propagated frequencies at speeds higher than the speed of light.

In his patent No. 787,412, filed May 16, 1900, Tesla showed that the current of his transmitter passed over the earth’s surface with a speed of 292,830 miles per second, while radio waves proceed with the velocity of light. Tesla holds, however, that our present “radio” waves are not true Hertzian waves, but really sound waves.

He informs me, further, that he knows of speeds several times greater than that of light, and that he has designed apparatus with which he expects to project so-called electrons with a speed equal to twice that of light.

Coming from so eminent a source, the statement should be given due consideration. After all, abstract mathematics is one thing, and actual experimentation is another. Not so many years ago, one of the world’s greatest scientists of the time proved mathematically that it is impossible to fly a heavier-than-air machine. Yet we are flying plenty of airplanes today.

Tesla contradicts a part of the relativity theory emphatically, holding that mass is unalterable; otherwise, energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity.

It is within the bounds of possibility that Einstein’s mathematics of speeds greater than light may be wrong. Tesla has been right many times during the past, and he may be proven right in the future. In any event, the statement that there are speeds faster than light is a tremendous one, and opens up entirely new vistas to science.

While it is believed by many scientists, today, that the force of gravitation is merely another manifestation of electromagnetic waves, there have, as yet, been no proofs of this. There are, of course, many obscure tilings about gravitation that we have not, as yet, fathomed, At one time, it was believed by many scientists that the speed of gravitation is instantaneous throughout the universe. This is simply another way of putting it that there are speeds greater than light.

Yet, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, no one today has any idea how fast gravitational waves—always providing that the force is in waves—travel. If the moon, for instance, were to explode at a given moment, how long would it be before the gravitational disturbance would be felt on earth? Would the gravitational impulse or waves travel at the speed of light—that is, 186,000 miles per second—or would the effect be instantaneous? We do not know.

The entire subject will no doubt arouse a tremendous interest in scientific circles. It is hoped that other scientists will be encouraged to investigate Dr. Tesla’s far-reaching assertions; either to definitely prove or to disprove them.

Well, I guess the future has arrived...

[sjw40364]

They are now preparing to do what they term a repeat of the test.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118

Dr Bertolucci, the director of research at Cern, told BBC News: "In the last few days we have started to send a different time structure of the beam to Gran Sasso.

"This will allow Opera to repeat the measurement, removing some of the possible systematics."

If they are sending a different time structure through the beam, is it realy then a repeat of the same test or a completely new test with new parameters, one that is more than likely to give new results? By changing the structure of the test you invalidate it as a check test and are instead running a completely different test than that ran before. The only surprising thing will be if the same results are obtained from a completely new test with different parameters. This new test with changed parameters will of course show all is right in the world of relativity once again. The anomaly will be passed off as an error and never heard from again as CERN prepares for acceleration of iron molecules. By adjusting the time structure one can be sure the new results will be consistent with c.

Technically even relativity does not forbid faster than c travel, just mass accelerated to c. This is patently incorrect as an electron travels at close to c and has mass. The energy required to do so would be astronomical according to theory. Plasma is accelerated at velocities at a fraction of c from galactic centers, yet infinite energy was not required. We accelerate protons at fractions of c, again without requiring infinite energy. Again, the difference between theory and experiments is monumental in scope.

[Oracle_911]

SJW in other words we can say, they are [self censored] swindlers .

[Sparky]

sjw,

Technically even relativity does not forbid faster than c travel, just mass accelerated to c.

I am not so sure that is even correct....i seem to remember that it was a false assumption and application of a variable which gave the conclusion that mass increases with speed or acceleration...it may have been miles who pointed that out...can't really remember who or where...

EDIT;

why would mass "know" how fast it is moving?

unless it is interacting with something, such as an aether which could add energy to mass moving through it.

[sjw40364]

sjw,

Technically even relativity does not forbid faster than c travel, just mass accelerated to c.

I am not so sure that is even correct....i seem to remember that it was a false assumption and application of a variable which gave the conclusion that mass increases with speed or acceleration...it may have been miles who pointed that out...can't really remember who or where...

EDIT;

why would mass "know" how fast it is moving?

unless it is interacting with something, such as an aether which could add energy to mass moving through it.

Oh I don't think that statement is correct either, I was just pointing out that as formulated relativity does not forbid faster than c travel, just energy associated with accelerating that mass to c.

There are lots of wrong conclusions in science. One I hear often is that a one pound weight and a two pound weight would both be weightless in space. Weightless relative to what? Are the Earth and Moon weightless? Acceleration only adds an apparent weight, yet as soon as I stop the acceleration I am immediately weightless again. Where did all that extra energy go in the blink of an eye? If I accelerate at 9G and stop thrust it is not a gradual change to weightlessness, but immediate. It is therefor only an apparent gain in mass or energy, not a real gain. Mass could care less how fast it is traveling, velocity has no meaning to its composition. Whether it's velocity (not acceleration) is 1,000 km/s or 100,000 km/s it doesn't matter. At 1G thrust I could eventually reach the speed of 100,000 km/s, yet my mass would never change.

[sjw40364]

An interesting paper that may explain the true change in measurement of the speed of c.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0037v1.pdf

[Aardwolf]

An interesting paper that may explain the true change in measurement of the speed of c.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0037v1.pdf

More confirmation that light only travels at c in absolute space and not as measured by all observers. Not sure it can help with the anomaly issue though. The increased speed of c measured in the neutrino experiment is far too high to be a result of the rotational speed of the Earth. The movement of the Earth though absolute space may be large enough to account for it though.

[sjw40364]

An interesting paper that may explain the true change in measurement of the speed of c.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0037v1.pdf

More confirmation that light only travels at c in absolute space and not as measured by all observers. Not sure it can help with the anomaly issue though. The increased speed of c measured in the neutrino experiment is far too high to be a result of the rotational speed of the Earth. The movement of the Earth though absolute space may be large enough to account for it though.

Agreed, but if we can now measure the speed difference of one way light propagation with respect to a spinning earth, then one can only assume that the earth's orbit around the Sun and the Sun's orbit around the galaxy and the galaxies movement through space, may, in certain circumstances, all add up. The test may never be repeatable until that same exact alignment occurs again, in another year. But of course any null result in the meantime will settle the issue and it will never be looked into again.

[nick c]

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236