The speed of light is NOT constant - Page 13 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th September 2011, 11:29 AM   #121
diyAudio Member
 
lieven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Talking waveguide, energy distribution

could be an explanation in anology of our beloved sound-waves, maybe...
.
 
Old 27th September 2011, 04:05 PM   #122
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Maybe the speed of light in rocks 'n' stuff (the 'n' stuff being anything else between the two devices) is faster than the speed of light in a vacuum?

If this was the case, there would be no problem.
 
Old 27th September 2011, 04:37 PM   #123
diyAudio Member
 
vacuphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seaside
Nope, speed of light in solids is always < C
 
Old 27th September 2011, 05:28 PM   #124
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
I assume that they have taken account of any gravitational and rotation effects.
 
Old 27th September 2011, 05:58 PM   #125
diyAudio Member
 
sofaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Antonio
Maybe it isn't relativity that needs reexamination, but instead our idea of the speed of light is off (by approximately 0.0025 percent)?
__________________
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry. - Thomas Paine
 
Old 27th September 2011, 06:11 PM   #126
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Interesting point, but I think GPS would fail if true.
 
Old 27th September 2011, 07:14 PM   #127
hates ground loops
diyAudio Member
 
Rodeodave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the alps
Blog Entries: 1
Now if we could only find a way to put a charge on these "neutrinos", and build some sort of "neutrino" vacuum tube, then with a circuit large enough we could probably manage to apply negative feedback at the point when the record currently playing was recorded, and thus compensate for dreadful remastering.
But I could easily be mixing up some facts though, so don't give it too much thought.
__________________
Gravity - Making the G since 13.7 billion B.C.
 
Old 27th September 2011, 09:36 PM   #128
diyAudio Member
 
sofaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Antonio
DF96, you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I was thinking the distances involved in GPS aren't great enough to reveal the error.
I considered the brief second page of the OP article very important to the whole. In monitoring the supernova, they "arrived within hours of each other." It isn't explicitly stated which arrived first, but I'm assuming the neutrinos lagged in that case, due to it being presented as a contradiction to this latest experiment. Definitely some strange and interesting things going on.
__________________
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry. - Thomas Paine
 
Old 27th September 2011, 11:56 PM   #129
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: gran sasso
The neutrinos preceded the light, ~3hours. But if You look it up, it is well described, and was expected like this.
Shortly: it took ~ 3 hours for the the detonation shock wave to reach the surface, and generate light. The neutrinos got a "head start", flying directly through of that superdense material.

With this 0.0025 % difference, they would have been ~4 years ahead, if it were valid even in that case. Obviously not..
Or.. who knows.. If there had been a primary neutrino signal 4 years earlier, I think it's close to zero the chance to dig it out of the general noise. I'm not sure if there were at all any detectors operative at that time. Real time neutrino detectors are not simple or cheap toys, and only proliferating recently.
{Kamiokande original only started up at 1983 april. Supernova happened in 1987 february. That is 1987-4 --> 1983 february..}

Ciao, George
 
Old 28th September 2011, 12:22 AM   #130
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: gran sasso
Ok, looked up - the other two detectors were operational also in 1983.
Though, if once in a year, at some moment, they had an abnormal signal, without any corresponding supernova event.. certainly up to now nobody was doing this kind of backward searches..
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cosmological constant.... mikeks The Lounge 402 21st February 2005 03:27 PM
Constant current PRBS Pass Labs 6 24th March 2002 12:49 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2