Second test of faster than light neutrinos confirmed

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Chris, Nov 18, 2011.

  1. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Two months after scientists reported that they had clocked subatomic particles known as neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, to the astonishment and vocal disbelief of most of the world’s physicists, the same group of scientists, known as Opera, said on Friday that it had performed a second experiment that confirmed its first results and eliminated one possible explanation for how the experiment could have gone wrong.

    But the group admitted that many questions remain. “This is not the end of the story,” said Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern in Switzerland, the spokesman for the collaboration, explaining that physicists would not accept the result that neutrinos could go faster than light until other experiments had come up with the same conclusion. “We are convinced, but that is not enough in science,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/s...n-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html
     
  2. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,098
    Thanks Received:
    2,147
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +2,933
    :lol: So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over! :lol:
     
  3. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    The first CO2 experiment was in 1859.

    Every experiment since then has confirmed the first test.

    Here's one for you.....

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLBBDB6EB75EC46640]Global Warming in a Jar - YouTube[/ame]
     
  4. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
    So you already have all the answers?
     
  5. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    I don't think there is an end to the story of nature.
    Not from our perspective, anyway.
     
  6. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,098
    Thanks Received:
    2,147
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +2,933
    The answer is to stop using science as a political tool to control us citizens while the elite do as they damn well please.

    - First lets take the EPA for instance. - The EPA is an idealogical movement not based on facts but based solely on fear propaganda. The EPA was started by lies published in Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" Rachel Carson's biggest lie was that DDT was killing the American Bald Eagles. The EPA was created because of this book. They then used the EPA to ban DDT. This DDT ban killed over 60 million people. Liberal propaganda has killed more people than all wars ever fought.

    Lies in Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring"

    Now that the fear based DDT propaganda has been exposed, the ban on DDT has been lifted. Again proving that the EPA is not science based & is nothing more than a political propaganda tool used to control people. Most of our jobs have been shipped out of this country thanks solely to the EPA.

    Al Gore says in his introduction to the 1992 edition of her book "For me personally, Silent Spring had a profound impact ... Indeed, Rachel Carson was one of the reasons that I became so conscious of the environment and so involved with environmental issues ... Carson has had as much or more effect on me than any, and perhaps than all of them together."

    - Or let's take the "Peak Oilers" - It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.

    “I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon – one which young men will live to see come to its natural end” (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).

    - “There is little or no chance for more oil in California” (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).

    - “There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas” (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).

    - “Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply” (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).

    - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)

    - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)

    - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)

    - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

    - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

    - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)

    - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)

    - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)

    - “Reserves to last only thirteen years” (1939, Department of the Interior).

    - “Reserves to last thirteen years” (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).

    - “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade” (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).

    - “At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years” (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teacher’s Version, 1990, p. 493).

    - “At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world’s known supplies of oil … will be used up within your lifetime” (1993, The United States and its People).

    - “The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use” (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).

    Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?

    One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, “in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining.” But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels. "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.

    And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
    The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.

    To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that’s trillion – over a century’s worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005

    - Do I even need to start in about the debate is over "Global Warming" swindle? -
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  7. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
    Believe it or not, I agree with you.

    Global warming IS real, the political gain garnered from its abuse however is disgusting and a misuse of science. Which is a crime against humanity at the LEAST.

    Except DDT has been physically proven to cause all the problems they say they cause, I will not debate with you the harm DDT causes to both humans and environmentally, as that is proven beyond doubt.

    The key there however, is only in excessive amounts. In small amounts DDT is very useful.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,622
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,418
    Science is an ongoing exploration of the universe around us. No Theory that we have created holds all the answers. Each is a model of how the universe works. As we discover more concerning the universe, we add to the models, or discard them in favor of a new one that explains the phenomona better. Yes, the physics of Relitivety overturned Newtonian physics. Yet we still use Newtonian physics for most everyday predictions of what matter will do. The model is good enough for ordinery work.

    As for all of you other BS, Kissinass, scientists make observations and predictions on known observations and evidence. The estimates of oil reserves were made for pumpable oil, light and heavy, and they stand. That is why we are paying $4 a gallon, and soon will be paying more. The sands, shale, and the rest cost far more to extract, more in direct costs, more in environmental costs.

    Global warming is not only real, it is already costing us all money as we pay more in the grocery store for things made of wheat and peanuts. It will continue to cost more as the effects of increasingly severe weather drive up the price of construction and insurance. The willfully ignorant, like you, can deny all you want, the rest of us live in the real universe, not some 'Conservative' alternative one.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,905
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,889
    Mebbe it was just faster than a speeding bullet...
    :confused:
    Update: Faster Than Light Particle Finding Rejected
    Monday, November 21, 2011 - An international team of scientists studying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend.
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,089
    Glad you posted that!

    That's the only AGW person who dares to go to the lab and he's adding wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than 100PPM of CO2

    Nice fall day here in NY. What happened to Climate change? We had one freak snowstorm in Oct and its been perfect fall ever since.

    Weird.

    Does your AGW theory actually work anywhere?
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011

Share This Page