Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5735317" data-attributes="member: 8835">So what's it mean if the experiment is correct and the effect is reproducible.I can understand science folks jumping on the Einstein is never wrong so they must be bandwagon.But would these guys post a claim like this if they thought it was wrong?They're working on very expensive equipment. I assume whoever pays for it would be pissed if they grandstanded for nothing.&nbsp; Pissed as in, stake your career on it levels of outcome for being wrong with high publicity.That doesn't discount them being wrong, but nobody wants to be the guy who claimed to have cracked Cold Fusion and then be shown how wrong he was.&nbsp; (Apparently Texas A&amp;M has that distinction).The actual experiment consists of shooting a bullet at a target and measuring the time it takes to hit and comparing that to the expected time.&nbsp; There's science and math involved, because the speed is so fast, that it ultimately means putting enough distance so the time elapsing will be big enough that our primitive clocks can measure it.That seems both simple, and potentially hard to reproduce.&nbsp; These guys are using what ammounts to the worlds largest shooting range.&nbsp; There are not that many (if any) facilities that can handle it.It is possible, there is a setup problem (clocks being the likely culprit).&nbsp; It's also possible that if these OPERA guys get off the range, the next set of guys will have the same result.So, what can that mean? Say the result is valid.&nbsp; What cool things can we do with that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5735317, member: 8835"] So what's it mean if the experiment is correct and the effect is reproducible. I can understand science folks jumping on the Einstein is never wrong so they must be bandwagon. But would these guys post a claim like this if they thought it was wrong? They're working on very expensive equipment. I assume whoever pays for it would be pissed if they grandstanded for nothing. Pissed as in, stake your career on it levels of outcome for being wrong with high publicity. That doesn't discount them being wrong, but nobody wants to be the guy who claimed to have cracked Cold Fusion and then be shown how wrong he was. (Apparently Texas A&M has that distinction). The actual experiment consists of shooting a bullet at a target and measuring the time it takes to hit and comparing that to the expected time. There's science and math involved, because the speed is so fast, that it ultimately means putting enough distance so the time elapsing will be big enough that our primitive clocks can measure it. That seems both simple, and potentially hard to reproduce. These guys are using what ammounts to the worlds largest shooting range. There are not that many (if any) facilities that can handle it. It is possible, there is a setup problem (clocks being the likely culprit). It's also possible that if these OPERA guys get off the range, the next set of guys will have the same result. So, what can that mean? Say the result is valid. What cool things can we do with that? [/QUOTE]

Verification