From supernova 1987a , observations reveal neutrino flux to Earth three hours in advance to light waves at 170kly . If CERN lead time were the same, 60ns in advance to light at 2.4ms, then the supernova / CERN discrepancy is about a magnitude 5. No doubt other factors are involved like the relative energys of CERN to supernova , and the shock wave propagation time within the stellar environment .
Was Cherenkov radiation observed ?
Thomas Kuhn tells us that tempory chaos can follow.
A friend's 10 year old son overheard me mentioning this to his Dad and he made an astute comment which impressed me, given the bulk of kids that age spend their days talking about polkimon points. Given that the acceleration of the universe seems to be getting faster, how do we know the speed of light hasn't increased with it?
@barakuda1111 Light does, in fact, do just that. The light waves are literally stretched to longer wave lengths, and this is called 'cosmic redshift' (as opposed to doppler redshift). When the redshifts of distant objects is reported, that's what's being reported. 'c' however, remains constant. *Always* 'c', no matter who measures it, or what the relative velocities of the sender and receiver.
@petergrenader Most likely this result will turn out to be due to some subtle systemic error. Anyway, 'c' gets measured all the time. This experiment shows a 0.001% variance from 'c'. Space expands at about only about 7% per billion years, or 0.000000007% per yr. The rate of change of the expansion is orders of magnitude tinier, though I don't have a reference handy.
Are the discrepancies here in any way related to the difference in speed shown by the Voyager probes? That is the Voyager probes are going slower than they should in their journey out of the solar system. Is it the case that they are going at the correct speed but the signals that we are getting from them have taken a detour through another dimension and are not arriving when we expect them to?
@Hairysteve20 Well, the most likely cause for this result is some subtle systemic error in the experiment. You're thinking of Pioneers 10 & 11. They both appear to exhibit an extremely tiny (8 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²) extra deceleration. This is also expected to be a systematic error. But none has ever been identified. To my knowledge, Voyagers 1 & 2, even further out, have not exhibited this anomalous effect.
From supernova 1987a , observations reveal neutrino flux to Earth three hours in advance to light waves at 170kly . If CERN lead time were the same, 60ns in advance to light at 2.4ms, then the supernova / CERN discrepancy is about a magnitude 5. No doubt other factors are involved like the relative energys of CERN to supernova , and the shock wave propagation time within the stellar environment .
Was Cherenkov radiation observed ?
Thomas Kuhn tells us that tempory chaos can follow.
tetracor 5 months ago
They made an awsomejob. BTW We, the Italians, really need to learn to pronounce correctly.
z0rr0rr0r 5 months ago
@z0rr0rr0r can you speak italian?
dagre76 5 months ago
@dagre76 I'm Italian :)
z0rr0rr0r 5 months ago
Yes, experiment will always give a good result, good science, and good theory. Unfortunately, ToE had none.
MrIntelligentdesign 5 months ago
A friend's 10 year old son overheard me mentioning this to his Dad and he made an astute comment which impressed me, given the bulk of kids that age spend their days talking about polkimon points. Given that the acceleration of the universe seems to be getting faster, how do we know the speed of light hasn't increased with it?
petergrenader 5 months ago
@petergrenader I would say that the light is "stretching" as the universe expands, It doesnt get any faster
barakuda1111 5 months ago
@barakuda1111 Light does, in fact, do just that. The light waves are literally stretched to longer wave lengths, and this is called 'cosmic redshift' (as opposed to doppler redshift). When the redshifts of distant objects is reported, that's what's being reported. 'c' however, remains constant. *Always* 'c', no matter who measures it, or what the relative velocities of the sender and receiver.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@petergrenader Most likely this result will turn out to be due to some subtle systemic error. Anyway, 'c' gets measured all the time. This experiment shows a 0.001% variance from 'c'. Space expands at about only about 7% per billion years, or 0.000000007% per yr. The rate of change of the expansion is orders of magnitude tinier, though I don't have a reference handy.
sbergman27 5 months ago
Are the discrepancies here in any way related to the difference in speed shown by the Voyager probes? That is the Voyager probes are going slower than they should in their journey out of the solar system. Is it the case that they are going at the correct speed but the signals that we are getting from them have taken a detour through another dimension and are not arriving when we expect them to?
Hairysteve20 5 months ago
@Hairysteve20 Well, the most likely cause for this result is some subtle systemic error in the experiment. You're thinking of Pioneers 10 & 11. They both appear to exhibit an extremely tiny (8 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²) extra deceleration. This is also expected to be a systematic error. But none has ever been identified. To my knowledge, Voyagers 1 & 2, even further out, have not exhibited this anomalous effect.
sbergman27 5 months ago