1. Originally Posted by macaw
Keep waiting. I already explained but you didn't get it.
Please cite the post where you "explained" something. As an educator, I have a different standard for what explaining means. Or didn't you notice that neither DrRocket, nor myself, both Ph.D.'s, thought that you explained anything at all.
Huh?

1-2.4*10^-5< v/c <1+12.6*10^-5
And the point is, of course, that even 2.4*10^-5 is not good enough precision to say squat that is interesting about neutrino rest masses, compared to what is already expected from the accelerators. This is the part you just keep overlooking, or ignoring. One last time: what, exactly, do you think needs "revision"??

2. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Ken G
As an educator, I have a different standard for what explaining means.
What educator? you mean teaching high school physics where no equations are needed? Like I said, it is not my fault that you can't learn.

And the point is, of course, that even 2.4*10^-5 is not good enough precision to say squat that is interesting about neutrino rest masses
See? What gives you any idea that 2.4*10^-5 is about rest mass? It is about speed. What does the formula

1-2.4*10^-5<v/c<1+12.6*10^-5 mean?

What does the RHS mean? You don't know.

3. Originally Posted by macaw
What gives you any idea that 2.4*10^-5 is about rest mass? It is about speed.
Nothing gives me that idea, I know perfectly well it is about speed. Please note all my comments about speed. Also note the relevance to rest mass. The misunderstanding here is all yours, I know perfectly well what is going on, and I know why your views about that measurement are all ATM. Please take them there, where you can be asked to actually back up what you are claiming.

What does the formula

1-2.4*10^-5<v/c<1+12.6*10^-5 mean?

What does the RHS mean? You don't know.
Well, it certainly means that neutrinos might move faster than c, or they might move slower than c. It means they might move at exactly the speed relativity says they should move at, given their energy and rest mass. It means there is no suggestion here that anything needs revising. It means you have no idea what you are talking about. Take it to ATM, as you obviously have no plans of answering any of the challenges I've already given you, and your objections to what DrRocket said are a complete hijack of this thread. Nothing that you've said is interesting yet-- if you have something interesting to say about that observation, please say it. Otherwise, take your unsubstantiated claims to ATM.

4. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Ken G
your objections to what DrRocket said are a complete hijack of this thread.
Last I checked it was uncommonse's thread about whether distance is invariant or not.

Otherwise, take your unsubstantiated claims to ATM.

Why would I do that? Just because you are unable to understand? No one else seemed to have trouble understanding, you are the only one still struggling with the concept.
Last edited by macaw; 2010-Mar-18 at 03:33 PM.

5. Originally Posted by macaw
Like I said, it is not my fault that you can't learn.
Ken G and particularly macaw,

If you can not discuss this like civil adults, I will be more than happy to dish out some infractions. Knock off the veiled comments.

6. Let me just summarize this aside: experiments have been done on neutrinos that cannot tell if they are moving faster or slower than c, and cannot rule out that they move exactly the way relativity expects them to move, so in no way invalidate DrRocket's summary of what relativity says about neutrinos and the rest mass of particles. The observations show a curious slant toward speeds higher than c, but that is well within the experimental uncertainty so by itself suggests no cause for any revisions of anything (but might be an interesting tidbit to file away in case future observations actually are statistically significant on that issue). That's it, there's macaw's aside, just read the link. Any other claims about that link are ATM and need to be discussed there. Now let's get back to the questions of the thread, if any still persist.

7. I am still here. I need some time to digest the prior posts. Alot of info to get a handle on. Will reply at later time.

8. Originally Posted by macaw
You need to understand the article first, comment after. For people knowing physics, the article is quite clear.
Yes, well on further reading I, at least, did deserve the dish out above. Wouldn't normally do this; just skim and post. But I saw this new track as really a diversion from the OP. Nevertheless the nuetrino subject is well worth a thread of it's own. Why don't you start one macaw?

9. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by sirius0
Yes, well on further reading I, at least, did deserve the dish out above. Wouldn't normally do this; just skim and post. But I saw this new track as really a diversion from the OP. Nevertheless the nuetrino subject is well worth a thread of it's own. Why don't you start one macaw?
Because it is a very complicated and puzzling subject, some of the experimental results are not yet totally understood by professional experimentalists. There is incontrovertible evidence that neutrinos have non-zero mass (contrary to prior thinking). There is also a non-zero probability that neutrinos move as c. SR does not forbid this per se (in a prior post I demonstrated that SR forbids accelerating massive particles up to c but does not forbid massive particles to be "born" moving at c nor does it forbid motion at >c (see the Tachyon subject) ). For the time being, the neutrino speed is still an open subject. As a footnote, there are perfectly mainstream theories (google A. Proca) that allow for non-zero mass for photons. Not only that the theory is mainstream, it is also very famous (Pauli mentioned it in his Nobel prize acceptance address). Amongst other applications, it is the foundation of all experiments that constrain the mass of the photon. I will say no more about this subject, it isn't worth getting insulted for trying to explain advanced topics. It isn't worth posting advanced subjects at all just to see certain members mistaking them for ATMs. I am sorry, I know that you are interested but it isn't worth it for me.
Last edited by macaw; 2010-Mar-19 at 04:24 AM.

10. Originally Posted by macaw
BAs a footnote, there are perfectly mainstream theories (google N. Proca) that allow for non-zero mass for photons.
You have a mistaken concept of what "mainstream" means. Hans Alfven is a perfectly mainstream physicist who has a non-mainstream cosmology, as is/does Geoffrey Burbidge. Any theory that gives a photon a rest mass, or says that neutrinos with rest mass move at c, is an ATM theory-- not because they are wrong, or contradict any experiments, but simply because they do not reflect our current "best understanding". They have not satisfied the requisite burden of evidence for going against the simplest and most successful descriptions, such theories are quite easy but not very useful until they are needed. Take your speculations to ATM, this is Q&A.

11. Some good info has been provided - thank you. But..... I am getting a "sense" that there is an overall flavour of "don't worry about it". I feel the concept from the OP begs deeper contemplation, as it is an aspect of relativity and not simply a "red headed step-child" of the same.

12. Hi, 2yrs late but here goes....Regarding light speed and distance at a constant. I think space time is unique for every single place within it, from earth orbit, to an empty zone with no planets or stars near by....in other words, i think gravity is effecting time and light in the said area of space...the person in that said area would not notice any change as to the speed of light, nor time, but from say a person who is looking in on the universe, they could see time tick and light travel slower in different zones of space time. Light seems to run side by side with gravity, and light and time seem to be effected by this...light/gravity/time-speed etc must all run in synchronisation in the particlular area it exists.. Say you had 2 photon clocks, checking the speed of light in two gravity zones with different time speeds, Zone A and B....both clocks would read or calculate the same speed for light, so that must mean, light is in fact traveling at different speeds when .observed from Zone C....your distance would be constant for the particle travelng at the speed of light, even if light slows down, distance/time would also slow down. I Think anyway.

13. Welcome to the BAUT forums, TheUFOPilot.

Here in the Space and Astronomy Q&A forum, answers to questions must reflect prevailing mainstream understanding. It is not the place for speculation or against-the-mainstream ideas. If you haven't already done so, please familiarize yourself with our rules, linked in my signature below.

14. Banned
Join Date
Jan 2008
Posts
2,273
uncommonsense,

Probably an elementary relativity question but,
From the relative perspective of a particle moving at the speed of light, is distance a constant?
According to Special or General Relativity no particle of matter could reach the speed of light concerning past interpretations. Neutrinos involving C could accordingly do so if they have no mass, but if they do have mass then reaching C is controversial. Large scale distances are calculated by the Hubble formula concerning galactic redshifts and "small-scale" distances can be estimated by different methods which collectively determine the "distance ladder" of calculations. The speed of light is a constant in these formulations but distances, like all measurement, involves comparison to a standard like one Angstrom unit or one light year, for instance. Bottom line is that according to present theory, distances are the same from one time frame to another and unrelated to matter in motion concerning a relative perspective.
Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Aug-18 at 04:24 PM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•