/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3781412]

Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

France 1 Einstein 0

[Anonymous No.3781421]

[Anonymous No.3781423]

Measurement error, anyone?

[Anonymous No.3781425]

>>3780843
Check for already existing threads fagballs.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.3781431]

Perhaps light is slightly slowed down because it is not in a vacuum. The experiment was done in air.
Water slows down light, that is why light is refracted. Any medium besides a vacuum will slow light down to some extent.
Perhaps the neutrino's were not impeded by the medium they were travelling through, but the light was.

[Anonymous No.3781432]

>>3781425 thinks scientists use chronometers.

[Anonymous No.3781448]

>>3781432
>>3781423*

[Anonymous No.3781466]

>>3781431
obviously cern would have accounted for something as simple as that in their months, yes months, of calculations

[Anonymous No.3781468]

>>3781431
It does not work that way. They were not checking against actual light signals - they were checking the actual transit time of the neutrinos and comparing to the speed of light.

But the discrepancy is billionths of a second, and there's probably just some source of systematic error they've overlooked or miscalculated. Does anyone know what their confidence interval is on the result? I know they've got 15,000 data points, but not their distribution.

[Anonymous No.3781508]

60 nanoseconds, +/- 10 nanoseconds is all I can find

[Anonymous No.3781517]

>>3781508
that's pretty much conclusive.

most of /sci/ don't think as scientists.
When an experiment shows something is wrong with the actual theory, there is no point in trying to defend said theory as if it was the absolute truth. Einstein understood that. And maybe Einstein was wrong on some things. Maybe he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.3781521]

>>3781508
That's probably just describing the standard deviation of the recorded transit times.

So yeah, you look at the data and say that the recorded value is "statistically significantly higher than c", but that doesn't mean there isn't a systematic error you've overlooked or estimated poorly that makes the true number lower than c.

[Anonymous No.3781543]

>>3781508
Meaning the neutrinos outpaced light by 18 meters approximately.

Could IT simply be that the neutrino-generating mechanism kicking in earlier due to some reason? Of course checking that should be trivial with a nutrino detector at the source and target.

How was the experiment designed really?

[Anonymous No.3781544]

>>3781517
>that's pretty much conclusive.
LOLno.

>When an experiment shows something is wrong with the actual theory, there is no point in trying to defend said theory as if it was the absolute truth. Einstein understood that. And maybe Einstein was wrong on some things. Maybe he wasn't.
You've got your philosophy of science right, but you don't know any actual method of science if you think this result is sufficient evidence to disprove relativity.
>>3781521

For instance, do you understand what's going on in this comic?
http://xkcd.com/882/

[Anonymous No.3781553]

>>3781543
Not that guy, and I don't know, but you're on the right track IMO. You're looking for sources of systematic error.

Having a precise result with statistical significance does not mean you have an accurate result.

[Anonymous No.3781574]

Wait, I thought neutrinos weren't even fully proven yet? That they were just a theory (a guess)?
But really, they are real? Cool.

[Anonymous No.3781579]

>>3781574
Yeah, we've had conclusive proof of the existence of neutrinos for quite some time.

You might be thinking of tachyons, which are purely theoretical, and not even possible to observe in theory (IIRC).

[Anonymous No.3781617]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdrak9znw1M

[Anonymous No.3781618]

>>3781412
>France
Funding of CERN:
Germany 19.88 %
France 15.34 %
UK 14.70 %

[Anonymous No.3781651]

>>3781618

Brains of CERN :
France 98.2 %
Other 01.8 %

[Anonymous No.3781658]

>>3781651
true

[Anonymous No.3781661]

>>3781544
If the results aren't biased, of course.

[Homework Helper No.3781683]

>>3781658
>brains
>France

Aha hah a....

[Anonymous No.3781690]

Standard model/Einstein told status:

[  ] Not told
[  ] Told
[  ] Toldfinger
[  ] Cash4told.com
[X] The Legend of Toldorado : The Lost City of Told

[Anonymous No.3781699]

Like I've been saying all along, maybe the speed of light isn't constant after all.

"Question all things. It is the belief in one false principle that is the beginning of all unwisdom" -LaVey

[Anonymous No.3781718]

>>3781651
I'm surprised they hadn't given up yet.

[Anonymous No.3781724]

>>3781683
>mfw I'm in preparatory classes and we rule the world.

[Anonymous No.3781732]

>>3781690
Large hadron colitold.

[Anonymous No.3781783]

>>3781544

Um, this isn't about a correlation of variables, it's about particles doing something which is theoretically impossible consistently after fifteen thousand different tests administered by some of the world's top physicists.

[Anonymous No.3781805]

>>3781783
>consistently after fifteen thousand different tests
No. There's a data set of 15,000 points that is statistically significantly different from the speed of light. Not a hypothesis tested 15,000 times. There is only one result here.

And it's probably due to systematic errors anyway.

[Anonymous No.3781811]

I seriously doubt that the measurements are off or the beam is misfiring or whatever else was said if they've worked for three years gathering 15,000 data points with a low enough standard deviation to "have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery".
Clearly something's up, and if an independent study shows the same results, we need to organize a mass burning of all current physics texts.

[Anonymous No.3781822]

Apparently the particles were sent as muon neutrinos and showed up as tau neutrinos, how is this connected?

[Anonymous No.3781841]

I am a timetraveler, let me explain.

It's 'destiny'. Neutrinos have a specific, one-dimensional future. No time is lost on coming to conclusions.

They're not stopped by spacetime.

We live in a 'natural computer', every is verified using spacetime. Neutrinos, are not verified. They're not faster than the speed of light, their time just works differently.

[Anonymous No.3781842]

>>3781822
That's what they were originally testing, the transformation of neutrinos. In the midst of the testing, they discovered the speed of light thing. At least that's how I understood it.

[Anonymous No.3781849]

>>3781811
You are conflating precision and statistical significant with accuracy. You can get the exact same result a dozen times in a row, but a systematic error could still mean you're off.

[Anonymous No.3781854]

>physics
>a science


pick only one motherfuckers

[Anonymous No.3781860]

[Anonymous No.3781861]

>>3781849
>statistical significance
fixed.

[Anonymous No.3781864]

>>3781841
Why did you travel back to this time, humble time traveler?

[Anonymous No.3781887]

>>3781724
Retourne bosser et prends pas la grosse tête alors.

But yeah, we've got pretty good scientists in France. Too bad most of them can't speak english (and french, for that matter) properly.

[Anonymous No.3781891]

>>3781849
I retract my statement.
But I still think that after so much testing they'd have noticed an error in the system.

[Anonymous No.3781946]

>>3781864
I didn't come alone, there are thousands. We're influencing 'social media' in way that prevents certain future events.

[Anonymous No.3781952]

>>3781891
>But I still think that after so much testing they'd have noticed an error in the system.
It's not like there'd be a little red light flashing. The result is a very small deviation from the expected result, after all.

At any rate, this will be investigated and attempted again. If it is confirmed, awesome.

But it's very unlikely.

[Anonymous No.3781974]

>>3781952
>attempted again
Will we have to wait another three years?

[Anonymous No.3781982]

>>3781946
Let me guess, time travel ruined everything imaginable and you guys are just making sure it will never happen again?

[Anonymous No.3781987]

>>3781946
How are you indistinguishable from anyone else in that matter?

[Anonymous No.3781992]

>2011
>Listening to this hack

[Anonymous No.3781998]

does this mean we all gonna die now?

[Anonymous No.3782007]

>>3781998
Probably

[Anonymous No.3782018]

not told []
told []
The Stantold Model [X]
Quantold field theory [X]

[Anonymous No.3782023]

>>3781998
Oh god I wonder if fast than light travel will become a hot plate like stem cells for some reason and testing it will be out lawed.

[Anonymous No.3782027]

>>3781651
Britfag physics undergrad here, lol nope. My lecturers spend a lot of time at CERN doing research and my tutor is doing his PhD there.

and all the important stuff is in Switzerland anyway if you want to get all nationalistic about it (which is entirely irrelevant to the experiment)

tl;dr: Fuck you, man.

[Anonymous No.3782028]

>Head to /sci/ to see reactions for breaking news
>Everyone trying to outsmart CERN

Goddamit again /sci/

[Anonymous No.3782031]

>>3781982

nah man, we're trying to stop CERN from breaking a hole in dimensions. in 2027, there's a specific reaction with Muon neutrinos and gravitons that causes a hole to briefly open up between this world and a parallel dimension. The inhabitants of that dimension, giant crustaceans with advanced technology and a fascist empire, notice the event and reverse-engineer it to open up a more permanent portal. Our fight goes poorly, so we sent men back to stop them from ever receiving that signal.

[Anonymous No.3782037]

Does this tell us anything about entropy?

[Anonymous No.3782039]

So the speed of light isn't the unbreakable barrier it was assumed to be, no big deal really.

[Anonymous No.3782041]

>>3782028
This. I wanted to hear their reactions, but all we get are at home tryhards

IMMA DO SCIENCE FROM MY BEDROOM.

[Anonymous No.3782053]

>>3782039
>no big deal

[Anonymous No.3782057]

>>3782023
>Scientist: "heh, hopefully we won't see too many people trying to recreate the grandfather paradox"
>Media: "PEOPLE WILL USE IT TO KILL THEIR GRANDPARENTS. BAN IT. BAN IT ALL."

[Anonymous No.3782065]

Please excuse the other people from /a/. They ought to know better.

To my question: should this turn out to be valid, which is likely, what could it mean for computing? FTL computing?

[Anonymous No.3782077]

>>3782031
Reminds me of Stephen King's "The Mist"
DRAW US A PICTURE OF HOW THEY LOOK CAP'N

[Anonymous No.3782083]

>>3782065
If you can fit an LHC in your computer then yes

[Anonymous No.3782098]

>>3782065
The repurcussions would be entirely theoretical for the moment.

We'd have to wait for smart people to come up with new theories and do lots of maths in dark rooms before we could even begin to speculate.

It could mean antigravity and teleportation, it could mean fuck all.

Either way, it'll likely be decades before we even begin to see any realisation of engineering applications.

Sorry, turns out science is actually pretty boring.

[Anonymous No.3782099]

>>3782041
Sure, but I think a certain amount of arrogance is necessary for the advancement of knowledge. Ideas can't be defended if no one challenges them.

[Anonymous No.3782123]

>>3782099
The problem isn't whether someone is willing to challenge ideas. We've got plenty of that, and every physicist wants to win the next Nobel prize. The problem is armchair-science crackpots who think they know far more than they do, and use their own "thought experiments" as "evidence".

[Anonymous No.3782128]

>>3782098
>doing science just for the practical engineering applications

get out

[Anonymous No.3782131]

>>3781982
No. You can't go back to where you came from, it's a one-way trip. Whatever we lost is lost. What people do is form clubs and travel back to shape a world according to their ideologies. We know exactly how this world is gonna look like, 10 years from now, without any outside interference.
>>3781987
Everyone else is pretty much part of the same club.

[Anonymous No.3782133]

What has thid to do with einstein? did einstein say speed of light can't be broken?

[Anonymous No.3782137]

>>3782099
and I am sure it they will be challenged, but not from neckbeards in /sci/

but what ever, /sci/ is just /k/ from the other side of the spectrum

[Anonymous No.3782149]

>>3782123
>>3782123
>>3782123
Grigori Perelman challenges your bullshit

[Anonymous No.3782150]

I think it's highly probable I mean, we've already shown that light is distorted by gravity and that space-time isn't flat but distorted and twisted. Is it possible that neutrinos can simply be non reactive with space-time and go in a more directed path than photons which interact with space-time?

tl;dr
are neutrinos wizards?

[Anonymous No.3782152]

>>3781811
and I'm pretty sure that the mars polar lander did not bury itself into the planet because they spent months, and 125 million dollars, doing all the calculations (in the wrong units.)
just saying...

This science is really complex, even the people at the top of the field are not perfect and the error may be something simple that we either overlooked or did not understand.

What these results show is that either the test is bad or the theory is incomplete. With the results CERN has I don't think anyone is going to claim relativity is in question quite yet.

[Anonymous No.3782155]

>>3782065
Almost definitely not. Neutrinos just barely interact with other matter -- detecting them requires the use of large, very specialized equipment.

[Anonymous No.3782167]

>>3782039

>so the fine structure constant isn't the fixed number we thought it was, no big deal really

[Anonymous No.3782174]

>>3782133

Yes.

[Anonymous No.3782175]

>>3782057
>Kill own Grandfather
>Laugh at fucked parallel timelines

[Anonymous No.3782177]

Hello /sci/. /v/ here, we have always gotten on to some degree. You guys like science, we like space ships. It's all good. So how about you answer some questions about this faster than light thing, for the simple man.

1. Does this mean Star Trek is REAL?
2. Will science now bash together two particles at over the speed of light to blow up the universe?
3. How did they discover this? Did the science men put extra good gas in the gas tank?
4. Can my internet travel faster than the speed of light, so I can get my porn before I want it?
5. If this is real, will this be the kick in the teeth everyone needs to become invested in space travel once more, and if so will governments start funding shit again?

[Anonymous No.3782180]

>>3782149
He's a mathematician. You do math from axioms. Physics is about checking what reality is like.

[Anonymous No.3782186]

>>3782167
Did the universe stop working and we all died? No? Then it's alright, we'll deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3782196]

>>3781699

>implying we didn't already know the speed of light wasn't constant

[Anonymous No.3782201]

there probably is some trivial mistake that they are aware of but are not admitting, choosing instead of let someone else find it later. acting like you can't find the mistake allows for the media to have a pop-science frenzy which puts them in the papers and helps them justify their gigantic budget

[Anonymous No.3782208]

>>3782123
True, but I think that such a chorus of noise is an unavoidable side effect of fostering an inquisitive mindset, and a rather small price to pay.

[Anonymous No.3782211]

>>3782133
no, he created light speed. It was his way to shackle humanity a millennia ago, right before he fell to his death at Trotsky's. This is us breaking from his spell that has bounded humanity from reaching our next stage.

[Anonymous No.3782212]

so what does this mean? will this affect my life in any way? i can't into science so an explain to me like i'm five.

[Anonymous No.3782213]

>>3782201
I don't think they would make a claim this big for funding. Not that they wouldn't do something like that, just not this major a claim.

[Anonymous No.3782221]

>>3782180
Yeah, one of my lecturers at cambridge main fields is algebraic geometry, but he is also intimately involved with the LHC project... they're both interconnected

[Anonymous No.3782228]

I said it first.

[Anonymous No.3782237]

Wait, guys. This means TRON can work right? Super fast internet connections.

THE POWER OF SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.3782246]

>>3782177
1.No
2.No
3. Read article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
4. No
5. Prolly not, we can't harvest this yet.

[Anonymous No.3782252]

Alright, true retard here. Assuming faster than light is real, how does this change previously established physics. I figured the idea was that as the speed increase toward light, it can't reach it (like approaching a limit). Now we just now that doesn't apply to everything.

[Anonymous No.3782257]

weird thing is I always though neutrinos travel faster than light

[Anonymous No.3782259]

>>3782213
They're not making claims. They're publishing their results and asking for help/confirmation.

[Anonymous No.3782261]

>>3782246
>No's to everything
Well why the fuck should we care then?

[Anonymous No.3782263]

Fuck energy.

[Anonymous No.3782268]

>>3782252

Well, get every book on relativity. Write across it wrong and throw it away.

[Anonymous No.3782280]

>>3782175
M Theory mutha fucka.
Have fun killin your grandfather in a seperate universe!

[Anonymous No.3782282]

>>3782268
Ok. I didn't know about the theoretical stuff.

[Anonymous No.3782285]

>>3782261
You shouldn't, go back to playin vidya.

[Anonymous No.3782287]

if post ends in 7 it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.3782288]

>>3782287

[Anonymous No.3782289]

Inb4 Martian microbes.

[Anonymous No.3782291]

>>3782287

Ok.

[Anonymous No.3782307]

If I were to make a historical comparison this result (if true) is about on the same level of "WTF this result can't possibly be right" as Rutherford's gold foil experiment. So these sort of surprising theory-breaking results aren't really unheard of.

That said, if I were a gambling man, I'd put all of my money on systematic error until we get confirmation from an independent experiment.

[Anonymous No.3782316]

>>3782287
>>3782287
>>3782287

neat

[Anonymous No.3782319]

>>3782307
Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.3782349]

>mfw Christfags claim God did this to show us how science is wrong and we are angering him.

[Lina-San !!uFop+xPDExu No.3782363]

>>3782349
>New science proves old science wrong
>Christfags take this as proof God exists.

[Anonymous No.3782364]

Mostly unrelated but when I told my friend about this he had this to say:

>Am I really the only one who was suspicious about this whole "light speed can't be exceeded" thing?
>I KNEW for a fact this would happen, I just wasn't sure if it would be within my lifetime.
>Almost everything in life is a theory, and most of it can only be proven wrong, not right.
>Me: What's next, are you going to say gravity can be proven wrong?
>Him: Absolutely. The very fact that we exist is only a theory, it can be disproven.
>MFW

[Anonymous No.3782375]

>>3782364
fucking liberal arts majors

[Anonymous No.3782378]

>>3782364
I know that feel, bro. Go checkout the religious forums... the stupid it burns.

[Anonymous No.3782388]

>>3781423
They double checked and triple checked and quadruple checked and ... what's the word for 15,000 times checked?

Even then they accept there's something unforeseen in their experiments, so they now await independent testers.

[Anonymous No.3782390]

>>3782364
Well ideally that's how science works. And things like this are what open doors to really cool stuff

[Anonymous No.3782392]

>>3782363

>listen to retards

problem is they got political power nothing else

[Anonymous No.3782398]

LET'S GET THIS SHIT STARTED
>Einstein

[Anonymous No.3782416]

Hang on. Doesn't this mean time travel is possible?

[Anonymous No.3782419]

>>3781543
>Kicking in earlier
They checked everything and ran the test 15,000 times, you'd think they'd have thought of that.

[Anonymous No.3782437]

theories are not dogma retards

[Anonymous No.3782440]

>>3782416

nope

[Anonymous No.3782441]

>>3782390
No, no that is not how science works.

Sure, you question everything, but not everything is equally justified by evidence. His philosophy sounds like "lol we don't really know anything, I can believe what I want no matter what the evidence says".

I mean, he fucking asserted a high chance that he doesn't exist. I mean, WTF does he even mean by that?

[Anonymous No.3782449]

>>3782419
There is a high chance that they have overlooked or mis-estimated some small source of systematic error.

[Anonymous No.3782453]

why would neutrinos go so fast? let's wonder

[Anonymous No.3782457]

my dick is faster than the speed of light

[Anonymous No.3782462]

Neutrino confirmed for nigger particle.

[Anonymous No.3782464]

>>3782453
No, let's not. Waste of time for everyone on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3782486]

>implying we are not already living in a alternate universe were space travelling is never going to happen because future UN sent time agents back in time in order to prevent CERN experiment

>inb4 CERN "accidentally" blows up in the next day

[Anonymous No.3782488]

>>3782128
Engineering applications are what gets us funding whether you like it or not, it makes it really easy to explain why you're doing something to people too.

"Hey anon, why are you spending my tax billions on big shiny machines that go ping?"
"Because nobody has before and i want to see what happens if i do it"
"what the fuck man, i'm gonna spend my money on crack and hookers instead"

"Hey anon, why are you spending my tax billions on big shiny machines that go ping?"
"Because it might get you a hovercar in 30 years"
"oh, okay, cool, carry on"

[Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3782506]

hey, want something else to blow your mind?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

>implication; free neutrino density influences the rate of radioactive decay, perhaps is even the reason for it in the first place.

freaky shit.

[Anonymous No.3782508]

>>3782453

because 7 ate 9.

wait wrong joke

[Anonymous No.3782513]

I can already see the sci fi show writers thinking up "neutrino drives" for ftl travel.

[Anonymous No.3782534]

>>3782513
haha, you think containing plasma for Nuclear Fusion is hard?

I would *love* to see what kind of crazy shit the hard sci fi writers come up with for containing/harnessing neutrinos

[Anonymous No.3782552]

wait, wait, how does exceeding the speed of light equal to time travel. All I know of is the faster you go the slower times goes for you

[Anonymous No.3782544]

>mfw normal people dont give a shit and will vote for stop funding science

[Anonymous No.3782562]

If only America wasn't full of over religious science denying bigots.

[Anonymous No.3782563]

I think that if you travel faster than light everything around you will stop but not going reverse in causality

[Anonymous No.3782561]

>>3782552
Traveling at the speed of light means, time stands still
so guess what happens when you travel faster than that

[Anonymous No.3782566]

>>3782552
it doesn't
it never did
no idea where the notion came from

[Anonymous No.3782568]

>>3782552
if you travel faster than light time is supposed to go backwards... but your mass would be infinite so nope.dll

[Anonymous No.3782573]

>>3782563
That's the prediction for traveling at c, not faster.

Going faster is completely forbidden by relativity (relativity says it is impossible to do).

[Anonymous No.3782575]

>>3782562
Which is why this shit happened outside of America. Stop acting like we live in the 70s, America is not the super power it once was.

Just because America has said lolno to science and space travel, doesn't mean the rest of the world has.

[Anonymous No.3782580]

>>3782568
How would anyone know that your mass would be infinite though, how is that calculated when Einsteins theory can't even support the fact that sub atoms can travel faster than the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.3782583]

>>3782552
>>3782561
>>3782566
>>3782568

Yes, it does mean time travel. The short answer is that if there is a reference frame in which something travels faster than light, there is another reference frame in which it arrives before it left. This can be easily shown with Minkowski diagrams.

[Anonymous No.3782592]

>>3782561
>>3782568
how so, it would just go slower, why stop, besides, you can go slower infinitely

>>3782566
?

[Anonymous No.3782597]

my gut reaction tells me something went wrong.
hopefully now there will be many different independent sources attempting to replicate the experiment.
if they all find the same reasults then...
well fuck then what?
if the speed of light isn't a barrier, is there anything we thought we knew about how the universe works that won't be called into question?

[Anonymous No.3782602]

>>3782580
>how is that calculated when Einsteins theory can't even support the fact that sub atoms can travel faster than the speed of light?
What?

The idea is that it requires infinite energy to boost a particle will mass to the speed of light. Relativistic mass is an outdated concept that isn't even well-defined in GR, but your total energy would certainly be infinite.

[Anonymous No.3782604]

then from the ''point of view'' of a neutrino things go backwards for a little moment ?

[Anonymous No.3782608]

>>3782580
>how is that calculated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

[Anonymous No.3782615]

>>3782568
>implying neutrinos have infinite mass

[Anonymous No.3782618]

>>3782597
No one ITT is capable of making an educated statement about implications if the results get further confirmation. Go play a videogame or something.

[Anonymous No.3782628]

I will bet anyone $1000 that it will turn out not to be a violation of relativity.

[Anonymous No.3782631]

Well sheit. There goes my theories.

[Anonymous No.3782634]

>>3782618

the implication is that there are ways of going faster than the speed of light.

which is pretty huge.

[Anonymous No.3782641]

>>3782597
People seem rather worried that this might be confirmed, but honestly, it's the most exciting thing in the world, the opportunity to prune the parts of theories you got wrong, get closer to the actual truth.

[Anonymous No.3782642]

People saying it's probably an error, it says that they accounted for a standard variation of 10 nanoseconds, the entire difference was 60 nanoseconds tho, a very, very big difference

[Anonymous No.3782649]

>>3782363
science always proves that it is wrong

and yet you worship it anyways

ponderous

[Anonymous No.3782651]

light fags crying because their ''particule-wave'' is slower than neutrino master race

laughing zoo particle.tiff

[Anonymous No.3782652]

>>3782642
Way to confirm your ignorance. You're conflating precision and accuracy. Systematic errors don't change statistical significance at all - but they still make your result wrong.

[Anonymous No.3782654]

2011 will be known as the year we broke the speed of light. This is an immense milestone.

[Anonymous No.3782656]

>>3782652
>implying there was a systematical error
Calling me ignorant lol

[Anonymous No.3782661]

>>3782656
>implying you know there wasn't
Not even the scientists are making the kind of bullshit claims that are ITT.

[Anonymous No.3782666]

>>3782661
>implying you know there was

[Anonymous No.3782667]

>>3782634
Before drawing that conclusion you have measure more. Such as, intercept the neutrino halfway, send neutrinos back. Relocate neutrino source a bit.

And to actually allow breaking of lightspeed we need to send a simultaneous light signal and intercept the neutrinos before. Otherwise some space-distorting pulse or whatever are likely to skew the locations of the origin/reception area.

Think like a /sci/entist .

[Anonymous No.3782670]

>>3781448
MY MINS IS FULL OF FUCK

[Anonymous No.3782672]

>>3782667
>space-distorting pulse
This would slow it down, not speed it up.

[Anonymous No.3782677]

>>3782666
You're not great at updating your prior beliefs rationally, are you?

Which is more likely - that relativity and all the experiments that confirm it are deeply flawed, or that this experiment has an unidentified source of systematic error?

Now, sure, we know that relativity has gaps and it isn't True. No scientific theory is True.

But this result is probably due to a systematic error. We'll see.

[Anonymous No.3782678]

wasnt time travel something possible only because it was impossible?
if it was possible than it would be impossible to begin with
so pleas dont get science involved in this

[Anonymous No.3782681]

why do you think of the universe as a bidimensional plane that can be distorted? isnt there three dimensions and maybe more?

[Anonymous No.3782684]

>>3782681
what?

[Anonymous No.3782687]

space-time distortion is confirmed experimentally

[Anonymous No.3782690]

do neutrinos have a mass, compared to the weightless light particles. Relativity theory is E=MC² right? So if neutrinos do have mass that means HUGE ENERGY, theory implodes

[Anonymous No.3782700]

>The first test for time travel is set for 21 December 2012

I mean c'mon how can't you see? we're going straight toward the end, and we're pushing ourselves into

[Anonymous No.3782693]

Seems like you /sci/ fags are in denial.
How does it feel to know everything you've ever known have been complete lies? I understand if some of you are now feeling suicidal.

[Anonymous No.3782694]

>>3782677
>Which is more likely - that relativity and all the experiments that confirm it are deeply flawed,

We will see when the results have been fully investigated

[Anonymous No.3782696]

>>3782690
Yes, neutrinos have non-zero mass.

[Anonymous No.3782705]

its because physics fags are the most arrogant scientists , they use to cross the line between theory and dogma, but they are human after all

[Anonymous No.3782707]

>>3782696

Wouldn't that mean they contain infinite energy?

[Anonymous No.3782708]

>>3782690
Yep, Neutrinos have a very miniscule non-zero mass

[Anonymous No.3782709]

>>3782694
No, you don't get me. You can update your priors NOW. It's weak evidence, but it's evidence.

The point is that it's not nearly strong enough evdience to reject relativity start babbling about time travel.

[Anonymous No.3782714]

>>3782707
If they're moving at or "beyond" c, sure.

Hence the need to check this result, and all the bullshit and trolling on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3782715]

>>3782707
hence why they are able to travel faster than light

[Anonymous No.3782719]

Someone please lecture me on why this would necessitate a rewrite of all scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3782720]

>>3782715
Your troll-logic is rock-solid and without flaw.

[Anonymous No.3782724]

>>3782709
Humans don't need a reason to start babbling about time travel.

[Anonymous No.3782723]

>>3782700
source?

[Anonymous No.3782734]

>>3782719

It proves how little we know
Now everything is possible
Even god

[Anonymous No.3782725]

>>3782719
It necessitates a rewrite of everything that is associated with the maximum speed of light at the very least, assuming its true.

[Anonymous No.3782727]

>hey guise, we did some tests and we got a pretty exciting result, but we'll have to do more tests and we encourage others to try to simulate the results
>/sci/-SPACE TRAVEL DISCOVERED, EINSTEIN CONFIRMED FOR FULL RETARD

[Anonymous No.3782728]

>>3782681
Take a piece of paper, imagine it has no depth. Fold it over and over and over, leaving a slight gap between each fold. It seems like a 3 Dimensional (albeit crude) box.

For all we know, what we perceive as a 3 dimensional universe is just a 2 dimensional plane folded over itself, each layer being a planck length apart.

Or going further, it may be a one dimensional "string" sqwiggling all over the place so that we perceive it as 3 dimensional.

[Anonymous No.3782731]

WE SPACE TRAVEL NOW

[Anonymous No.3782746]

Ok for all the time travel faageets in this thread, the only know way to travel in time is to go into the future not backwards, but the only way we knew to do that was to slow down time by going 99.9999% the speed of light. Everything we once knew well be gone if these frog eating kikes are right.

[Anonymous No.3782760]

>>3782719

because everything is related in science

[Anonymous No.3782769]

>>3782746

A fresh start
Think about the posseibililities

[Anonymous No.3782779]

>>3782725

So it is quite revolutionary, then.

But is it possible that instead of being utterly wrong, the theory of relativity just needs fine-tuning? It seems like a natural progression to me: Newton proposes theories on mass and gravity that was practically correct for most things; Einstein comes along and then builds upon it and creates a theory that would account for the anomalies in Newtonian theory; etc. Perhaps, then, just as how Newtonian gravity is confounded by Mercury, Einsteinian relativity is confounded by neutrinos.

If so, we should celebrate since this means opening a new door for physics.

[Anonymous No.3782787]

Newton's model overturned Aristotle's.

Einstein's overturned Newton's.

???? overturned Einstein's.

>Einstein considered relativistic space to be an evolution of Newtonian space, not a refutation. Who's to say the same thing won't happen again? At any rate, we seem to be stuck with an intractable disagreement between quantum and gravity anyway, so perhaps the theory that reconciles those two lies in rethinking the nature of light or time again, as was done before by Einstein?

[Anonymous No.3782799]

>>3782672
>>space-distorting pulse
>This would slow it down, not speed it up.

If a space-contractile pulse/field reduces the distance by 18meters then no.

[Android !Apkkkkkkkk No.3782806]

Einstein status:
[ ] Told
[ ] Really Told
[X] TOLDASAURUS REX
[X] Cash4told.com
[X] No country for told men
[X] Knights of the told Republic
[X] ToldSpice
[x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious
[x] Command & Conquer: Toldberian Sun
[x] GuiTold Hero: World Told
[X] Told King of Boletaria
[x] Countold Strike
[x] Unreal Toldament
[x] Stone-told Steve Austin
[X] Half Life 2: Episode Told
[x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm
[X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon
[x] Assassin's Creed: Tolderhood
[x] Battletolds
[x] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shatold of Chernobyl
[X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo
[x] Told of Duty 4: Modern Toldfare
[X] Pokemon Told and Silver
[x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told
[X] Rampage: Toldal Destruction
[x] Told Fortress Classic
[x] Toldman: Arkham Told
[X] The Good, The Bad, and The Told
[x] Super Mario SunTold

[Anonymous No.3782818]

>>3782746
>Everything we once knew well be gone if these frog eating kikes are right.

Not necessarily. My guess is that their results are accurate, but the hysterical, sensationalistic interpretations ITT are not. The real cause will certainly be something very interesting, but I doubt very much it will contradict relativity.

[Anonymous No.3782822]

>>3782787
It will be mine.

[Android !Apkkkkkkkk No.3782824]

>>3782818
>but I doubt very much it will contradict relativity.

I wut'ed hare

[Anonymous No.3782825]

>>3782806

>don't get ahead of yourself

"The claim was met with skepticism, with one outside physicist calling it the equivalent of saying you have a flying carpet. In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings."

[Anonymous No.3782841]

>>3782806
Status of Telling:

[X] Told King Wenceslas

[Anonymous No.3782842]

>>3782787

I always thought that Einstein's revolution was the peak of human genius. I always thought that nothing could possibly top that.

And behold, now the time is ripe. Imagine if Einstein is wrong and relativity needs reworking. To overcome that problem we will need another extraordinary insight. It could come from anywhere. It could come from us. Hell, Einstein was a worker at the patent office once.

It's damn exciting.

[Anonymous No.3782844]

>>3782806
You forgot:

Large Toldron Collider.

[Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3782848]

>>3782806
>>3782841
>>3782844
man, i love these

[Anonymous No.3782850]

So would the antiparticle of a neutrino also travel faster than the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.3782853]

Probably a systematic error in their measurements. If their measurement of the distance between the two locations is off by even a meter, they'll have enough of a measurement error to think the neutrinos go FTL. Can also happen if their clocks are out of sync by a few nanoseconds.

We've done tons of neutrino velocity measurements before. They've always said they move immeasurably close to c, or very slightly measurably slower than c, relative to us. (This includes measuring the time between light from supernovae and a corresponding neutrino bursts.)

[Anonymous No.3782857]

>>3782844

J.R.R. Toldkien

[Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3782864]

>>3782853
i very much doubt CERN would even mention this if careless mistakes like that were present

i'm not saying mistakes are not present, i'm saying if there are mistakes, they'll probably very bizarre or unique or not easily detectable ones

or physics just got proverbially molester, either way

[Anonymous No.3782880]

>>3782864

Ah, the old physics molester proverb. The best of all the proverbs.

[Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3782884]

>>3782880
:I

[Anonymous No.3782895]

>>3782806
Warhammer 40k: ToldMarine

Captcha: [t]rolled tyffet

[Anonymous No.3782898]

>>3782824
Not that guy, but he's talking about the cause of the anomaly in the result. He's saying it's probably not due to an actual relativity violation.

[Anonymous No.3782902]

I wonder if this has something to do with the recently discovered relationship between the rate of radioisotope decay and sunspots. Since one of the suggested mechanisms for that was an undiscovered interaction between atomic nuclei and neutrinos.

For two decades, some pessimists have said that we have learned all about the fundamentals of our universe and that there remains nothing amazing to be discovered.

And now, in a short period of time we have heard of amazing discoveries. Maybe including this one.

Either way, it's a good time to be alive and conscious.

[Anonymous No.3782908]

>>3782842
> Imagine if Einstein is wrong and relativity needs reworking.
Physicists have always known that relativity is not Truth. No scientific theory is Truth. The very fact that we can't reconcile results from GR and QM shows that we don't have Truth.

However, I agree that if these results were confirmed it would be very exciting. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3782912]

>>3782902
i linked that a little earlier in the thread
the data which originally suggested it has yet to be refuted in any way.

however i doubt it'll be TOO much of an upset. the equations still work, but the underlying principles might do a little squaredance. neutrinos being responsible for radioisotope decay is what's making me scratch my head

[Anonymous No.3782910]

>>3782902
>For two decades, some pessimists have said that we have learned all about the fundamentals of our universe and that there remains nothing amazing to be discovered.
These people always exist. They are always wrong, and they are not scientists anyway. Why do you even mention them?

[Anonymous No.3782911]

>>3782806
[ ] Not Told
[x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour
[X] Super Told Boy
[X] Left 4 Told
[X] Battoldfield: Told Company 2
[x] Toldman Sachs
[x] Avatold: The Last Airbender
[X] Dragon Ball Z Toldkaichi Budotold
[x] Toldcraft II: Tolds of Toldberty
[x] Leo Toldstoy
[x] Metal Gear Toldid 3: Snake Eater
[x] J.R.R Toldkien's Lord of the Told
[X] LitTOLD Big Planet
[x] Rome: Toldal War
[x] Gran Toldrismo 5
[x] Told Fortress 2
[x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood
[x] Guilty Gear XX Accent Told
[x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile
[x] was foretold
[x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn
[x] Tic-Tac-Told
[X] Biotold 2
[X] Toldbound
[x] icetold
[x] Told of the Rings
[x] Microsoft Essential TOLD
[x] GNU/TOLD
[x] Linus Toldval
[x] Untold Legen
[x] Tolding@home
[x] Richard Toldman
[x]James Bond:Toldfinger
[x] Pokemon: Told Version
[x] Gentold Linux
[x] Toldal Recall
[X] The Land Before Told
[X] The One Ring to Told Them All
[X] The Told Man and the Sea
[X] For Whom the Bell Told
[X] ReTold to the Castle of Wolfenstein

[Anonymous No.3782932]

>>3782608
yah that's not vaild anymore

[Anonymous No.3782933]

Did everybody fail maths or do none of you understand what special relativity details?

Matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, there was something wrong with the experiment.

[Anonymous No.3782935]

>>3782902
God is eternal
the universe is borderless
knowledge is infinite

what we know is just what we know

[Anonymous No.3782937]

>>3782824
>I wut'ed hare

Seriously? You are confused by a reluctance to proclaim that relativity has been falsified based on one unexpected result with no clear explanation?

[Anonymous No.3782951]

>>3782935
And we don't even know any of that.

Wonderful how little we know, pursuit is the best part of discovery.

[Anonymous No.3782954]

>>3782908
what do those 2 acronyms stand for anon?

[Android !Apkkkkkkkk No.3782956]

>>3782937
I just didn't read the thread

[Anonymous No.3782961]

>>3782933
You're almost certainly right. But nothing is absolutely certain - we have to check the results (though I don't really think you were implying we should ignore them).

[Anonymous No.3782962]

>>3782954
general relativity and quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.3782964]

> 1. Build machine to translate neutrino bombardment into binary.
> 2. Broadcast for all the world to see that, if time travel exists in the near future, that someone will surely try to reach us through this.
> 3. ???????
> 4. Nothing happens because of Novikov's Self-Consistency Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

[Anonymous No.3782966]

Can someone explain to me what does this means? like how can this be implemented for the good of mankind. I cant into physics

[Anonymous No.3782967]

>>3782954
Sorry. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[Anonymous No.3782977]

>>3782910
Because the doubters should also be remembered.
They are the grindstone against which the blade of reason hones itself.

The finishing can be tedious, but without it, the blade would be left dull.

[Anonymous No.3782986]

Special relativity is one of the most successful theories in the history of science. There is plenty of reason to be wary of making too much out of this before it has been examined and re-examined and reproduced again and again.

[Anonymous No.3782987]

>>3782933
The thing is, if this is confirmed, it challenges special relativity.

Please don't imply that it's impossible to challenge it. Relativity is not a fact, it's just more accurate than anything we have so far.

But then so was Newtonian physics until Einstein decided to make a more accurate system.

[Anonymous No.3782991]

>>3782977
>They are the grindstone against which the blade of reason hones itself.
>While talking about the people who claim we know everything about everything.

[Anonymous No.3782993]

>>3781946

Are there 4400 of you?

[Anonymous No.3782998]

>>3782962
>>3782967
thanks for the quick responses

>>3782951
well, for one, God is eternal, otherwise He stops being a God

[Anonymous No.3783009]

I'm telling you its Martian microbes all over again.

Their speedometer must be so fucking broken its not even funny.

[Anonymous No.3783014]

If there is a god then who created god?

[Anonymous No.3783019]

>>3782986
>General relativity is one of the most successful theories in the history of science. There is plenty of reason to be wary of making too much out of this before it has been examined and re-examined and reproduced again and again.

FTFY. The only thing good about SR is that quantum electrodynamics doesn't shit itself when you impose Lorentz invariance.

[Anonymous No.3783029]

How many weeks till we have a FTL drive up and running?

[Anonymous No.3783030]

>>3783009
I know right man! They probably tested this once with fucked equipment, got over excited and claimed they fucking humiliated Einstein.

[Anonymous No.3783025]

>>3782998
We don't know he started being God to begin with.

[Anonymous No.3783028]

How long til we see portal guns?

[Anonymous No.3783033]

>>3783014
The irony when your image has the water "almostdumb,com"

[Anonymous No.3783035]

>>3783025
he still had to be created.

[Anonymous No.3783038]

>>3783019
Special Relativity's flaws do not make it any less successful. It can make extremely powerful predictions.

[Anonymous No.3783041]

Speculation is the lifeblood of the human mind is a very true analogy in this sense. I do not consider the Special Relativity as disproven by this event, I see it more as an addition maybe, provided there are no fallacies or errors inherent in the data. But till then I will hold my tongue on absolutes. Saying that the result is wrong without actually having been there or seen the actual results is just an arrogant way of saying that I know everything, and saying that what happend is right and Relativity is wrong is another arrogant gesture implying that you just want to be right by choosing the most popular thing right now. No one knows except the scientists themselves.

[Anonymous No.3783043]

>>3783014
God always existed.

[Anonymous No.3783044]

>>3783014
>>3783025
God doesn't give birth to nor is He given birth to, otherwise He stops being a God.

pretty much like God is eternal

[Anonymous No.3783047]

REV UP THAT SUPER SPIRAL ENGINE

[Anonymous No.3783042]

I don't understand why majority of you fags on /sci/ and people of the world try to denounce that this can't be possible. Yes, I take everything with a grain of salt but being Einsteins butt buddy doesn't help progress new discoveries in science if at every turn you instantly think it can't be possible. I thought as a scientist you are supposed to be open to new discoveries and accept the fact that your original discovery was in deed wrong.

[Anonymous No.3783050]

>>3783043
lol

gets me every time

[Anonymous No.3783052]

>>3783044
Why are we talking about the characteristics of fictional characters now?

[Anonymous No.3783055]

>>3782987
Right, but so far there's NO evidence.

No papers, nothing published, just some numbers that don't make any sense.

I wish it were true, because then the human race might not be confined to such a small area of space. But it's probably just broken equipment.
They're going to be embarrassed when they find out what it is.

[Anonymous No.3783056]

>>3782991
Think about the analogy. A grindstone can never be the blade, but the blade wouldn't be as sharp without the grindstone.

[Anonymous No.3783060]

>>3783056
It would if it was a Katana.

[Anonymous No.3783066]

>>3783055
But we're not confined to a small area of space. One way trips are fine.

[Anonymous No.3783076]

>>3783055
I absolutely agree, I'm just saying, don't just outright call it impossible because it goes against current theories.

[Anonymous No.3783078]

>>3783044
>>3783043
Consider the Following:
How about a what created the universe rather then a who. I refuse to believe that if there is god why is there is so much suffering in this world. Unless its an evil god that enjoys watching people suffer just for his amusement.

[Anonymous No.3783080]

>>3783052
how do you into life....? Nuff said

[Anonymous No.3783072]

>>3783060
An obsidian blade is even sharper, and doesn't require the use of a grindstone.

Allthatglittersistold.jpg

[Anonymous No.3783083]

>>3783056
People who declare the end of research are in no way helping improve the state of knowledge. Your analogy isn't working for me.

[Anonymous No.3783084]

>>3783066
Two way trips are fine too, time dilation is awesome if you want to be a nomad.

Just don't expect anything to be waiting for you when you get back.

[Anonymous No.3783087]

>>3783055
Do you really think they don't check equipment for years at a time?

[Anonymous No.3783088]

>Everything requires a creator
>Except God
Why?
>Because he's God.

[Anonymous No.3783086]

2 ATI Nutrinodeon's in Crossfire. FTL sniping faggots should be banned I say!

[Anonymous No.3783092]

>>3783086
>ATI
0/10

[Anonymous No.3783094]

>>3783044

If God is eternal then God can't know God's own beginning or end.
So God isn't all knowing, and therefore, not God.

[Anonymous No.3783098]

>>3783084
Right.

Point is, SR doesn't hurt the idea of colonization. You just can't form much of a civilization for planets more than a few lightyears apart.

[Anonymous No.3783099]

>>3783086

Couldn't happen since there wouldn't be any drivers for those Nutriondeons

[Anonymous No.3783102]

>>3783078
God would've brought down punishment upon humankind from the getgo, but man has been granted delay until the day of judgement.

[Anonymous No.3783107]

>>3783094
No, he wouldn't have a beginning or end, so there wouldn't be anything to know about it. If he had a beginning or end, he wouldn't be infinite.

[Anonymous No.3783110]

>half asleep
>hear news
>head straight for /sci/

What now motherfuckers?

>mfw ftl is possible

[Anonymous No.3783115]

>>3783107
For that to be possible God would need to exist outside of time.
He wouldn't be able to interact with anything in the Universe.

[Anonymous No.3783120]

>>3783078

The word you're looking for is "sadist."

But your general question is more complex than you could imagine.

Just think about this: the most brilliant minds in all of human history knew without a single doubt that they would one day die. They contemplated death, and by extension life. Inevitably, those questions lead to "why do we die" and "why do we suffer."

It's deep, man. Far deeper than atheists would ever admit to out of fear of their own ignorance. So...don't expect a satisfactory answer out of this or any general group. It'll be a life-long question that will tug and pull at you (unless you bury your head in the sand).

Cheers :D

[Anonymous No.3783122]

INCH BY INCH WE UNCOVER OUR SHEER IGNORANCE.

[Anonymous No.3783123]

>>3783102
That's ridiculous, what's the point of this delay? Giving man a chance to sort himself out? In the meantime let the innocent suffer?

Alternatively, God is a guy in a lab who is running experiments on universe creation, who can do nothing but observe us.

[Anonymous No.3783126]

>>3783110
Nothing to see here, it has turned into a religious thread

[Anonymous No.3783127]

>>3783110
>mfw i get here and you fuckers are still trolling about god

Fuck you /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3783121]

>>3783094
there is no beginning nor an end for God. He is eternal, He always has been. That's what God is, everything else is falsehood and not God

[Anonymous No.3783131]

>>3783123
Or chooses not to

[Anonymous No.3783147]

>>3783115
God IS creator of time, creator of everything, without God there is nothing. Not even time. That is God's might. Stop bordering your thoughts, you are, we are nowhere near to understand God's being.

created trying to undermine the Creator, you just went full retard anon, seriously

[Anonymous No.3783150]

>>3783147
Can God create rock too massive for him to lift?

Oh whoops. Guess he's not God.

[Anonymous No.3783153]

>>3783147
Fighting for a god you cannot even prove exists.
Do not accuse others of retardation when you cannot overcome your own.

[Anonymous No.3783172]

>>3783150
Yes. He can.
"But then if it's too massive for him to lift then he's not all powerful."
No, he can lift it.

"But then he failed at creating a rock so massive he could not lift it."

No, he simultaneously created a rock that he could and could not lift. He's all powerful, logic doesn't apply.

[Anonymous No.3783173]

>>3783147
If a being is soo perfect and so mighty then it has no hubris. WIth no hubris there is no need for devotion, just eternity, you will not be influencing God on anything praying or otherwise. You can either believe or not believe the difference is the same. Nothing will alter any choices you make because the system and rules that govern the galaxy makes sure it happens, thus god in itself is nonexistant but existant through these laws.

[Anonymous No.3783181]

>religion

[Anonymous No.3783193]

>>3783123
You know what happened right....? Adam, peace and blessings be upon him got tricked by the devil. Because of that mankind got casted out of heaven. If you're fortunate enough you'll re-enter that universe

on a sidenote, the devil is not a fallen angel, what judaism/christianity wants to make you believe. He is, just like Adam, peace and blessings be upon him, a creation. Man is a creation of earth, the devil of fire. Adam is forefather of man, the devil is forefather of djin

[Anonymous No.3783195]

>>3782246

Why no to no. 4? How are neutrinos generated, and is there a reason for us not to be able to use them in fiber optic cables? Or something with the same basic principle anyway.

[Anonymous No.3783209]

>>3783193
What religion is that?

[Anonymous No.3783210]

>>3783195
Neutrinos very, very rarely interact with "normal" matter. You can't confine them to cables.

[Anonymous No.3783211]

Relating to god in /sci is like wiping with sandpaper, what were u thinking?

[Anonymous No.3783216]

>>3783209
>>3783193
The words and phrases he's using are from Islam.

[Anonymous No.3783217]

>>3783210
You wouldn't need to, just point through the earth at the correct computer, and shoot.

[Anonymous No.3783224]

>>3782552

And at the speed of light it stops entirely. Beyond it would mean it goes backwards.

See?

[Anonymous No.3783227]

If God's so great how come I'm so fat

fat people: 1
christians: 0

[Anonymous No.3783234]

>>3782672

Not if it contracted the space, silly.

[Anonymous No.3783235]

>>3783173 you will not be influencing God on anything praying or otherwise

Exacty! And that is what He says to mankind in His messages. Qu'ran, being the only holy book that is unharmed by man's wrongdoings says exactly what you just said. The praying you do is for yourself. Anywho, what it comes down to, you don't defy your Creator. If you choose to do, join the devil, be my guest.

[Anonymous No.3783237]

>>3782964
OH MY FUCKING SCIENCE. You are really fucking retarded. If the neutrino was going back in time after reaching the speed of light they wouldn't have been able to record the time it took to reach the destination in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3783240]

>>3783209
islam

[Anonymous No.3783241]

>>3783227
The 1 is thinner than the 0

Fat people: 0
Thin people: 1

[Anonymous No.3783242]

science fiction > science, therefore aliens

[Anonymous No.3783243]

>>3783217

Dude. My mind is blown.

[Anonymous No.3783251]

>>3783237
I think its simple that it COULD be that einstein was being retarded and Light speed/=/speed of time.

it could simply be that time is faster then light to begin with and theres a buffer zone between light and time, then neutrinos are in between the 2.

[Anonymous No.3783252]

>>3783234
We've never encountered anything like this. You'd need to provide evidence of it before asserting that it could have affected the results of the neutrino tests.

[Anonymous No.3783254]

>>3783241

[Anonymous No.3783256]

>>3783237
Go study SR. That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.3783277]

>>3783256
Special Relativity is going to be a crock of shit soon.

[Anonymous No.3783279]

>>3781412
>He spent that latter half of his life trying to disprove quantum theory because of personal belief.

[Anonymous No.3783282]

>>3783277
Don't speak so soon.

[Anonymous No.3783287]

>>3783282

Special relativity is going to have to be split up into SR and Super-SR.

[Anonymous No.3783291]

>>3783277
That's not the point. Read >>3783237
That poster clearly doesn't understand SR.

Also it'll be no more a 'crock of shit' than Newtonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.3783311]

>>3783227
It's cause you eat too much, faggot.

But seriously, there are people who have been declared dead and came back to life. Many of these people say they saw Heaven or Hell. What do you say to those people? That they are just delusional? Really? You come off as the delusional one.

Not that this thread was about God. It's about whether Goku's Instant Transmission technique is possible.

[Anonymous No.3783335]

>>3783311
Most people don't see heaven or hell. Studies have shown(according to discovery science) that only people with extreme religious predisposition will see "heaven". The most common occurrence people experience when on the verge of death is an out of body experience.

[Anonymous No.3783342]

>>3783335
And that's due to the enormous amount of DMT your body releases right before death.

[Anonymous No.3783354]

>>3783311
your belief needs some adjustment. Purgatory, know of it? The gates of heaven and hell are closed and won't be opened untill the day of judgement is over. So what those people experienced is a case of herp derp

[Anonymous No.3783360]

>>3783335
The second most common experience is having ones life "flash before their eyes".

[Anonymous No.3783365]

>>3783342
DMT?

[Anonymous No.3783367]

>>3783365

Digital Medium Transmitter.

[Anonymous No.3783381]

>>3783365
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

[Anonymous No.3783386]

>>3782935
i agree with the first statement
but the second two are just sappy

i can only picture god as an omniscient professor who'd desperately trying to encourage his students to learn, while still keeping in mind what is "good".
the only problem is people often go to either extreme instead of going down the middle

[Anonymous No.3783439]

>>3783386
Labeling god as a being is simply wishful thinking. God doesn't necessarily have to refer to one. For all intents of purposes if a conscientious entity did create the universe, it could be a collective of individuals. Much like the scientists at CERN. It would be extremely insulting for us to accredit discoveries at CERN to only one man. With that being said I believe that the Universe itself is god and we as humans are the conscious part of the universe, making us an extremely important part of god. Nothing in this universe, as we have seen or experienced to date is more important than us

[Anonymous No.3783475]

>>3783386 desperately trying

No. We're here, we exist to worship God. Doing prayers is worship, going to work to feed yourself and your close ones is worship, pursuing knowledge and learning the universe around you is worship. Aslong as you bare God in your mind before any endeavor, then all is fine. You here, everything here, is by God's blessings. Denying God is the same as denying the universe you're living in

[Anonymous No.3783492]

>>3783439 pagan believes

[Anonymous No.3783508]

>>3783047
>Alderamin
>Aldebaran

where's Alderaan?

[Anonymous No.3783565]

TACHYONS

[Anonymous No.3784007]

>>3783172
>Religion, logic doesn't apply.
Totally.

[Anonymous No.3784142]

>>3784007
God is creator of logic. Hence God is above logic. What do you, arrogant creation, not understand?

[Anonymous No.3784155]

>>3784142