| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kehro Urgus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
4
   |
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
Maybe the conditions within the supercollider allowed the neutrinos to break the local light speed rather, achieve a slightly higher speed than normal. Kind of the opposite effect of Cerenkov radiation effects seen in nuclear reactors.  |
Florestan Bronstein
United Engineering Services
54
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Gregor Palter wrote:Florestan Bronstein wrote:Gregor Palter wrote:If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it. butthurt much? brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol (you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena) You really, really ought to reread what I posted and think it over a few times, if you keep at it you might realise that it's different from what you think it is.
still mad at your maths teacher for flat out dismissing all of your "empirical proofs"? |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
I concede to your level of stupidity. |
Steve Ronuken
Cossette Moana
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.
Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'
It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff. |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.
Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'
It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff.
Exactly that, yet many idiots mistake findings and theories for facts and argue on that basis. They just gobble up stuff they've learned or read somewhere and poop it out as facts out without actual knowledge or the necessary addendum that they are nothing more than theories.
Case in point; if you ask a moron how the universe started there's a good chance he starts spouting one of the string theories as fact. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
30
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Down Boy!
Quote:
the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
That's not allot faster is you factor in variables like warped space, particle interaction and the fact that we cannot calculate the speed of light to 100% accuracy.
Also, I have some questions for some of you science nuts out there
Fact: inertia is a property of matter (insert equations about how it functions here)
What you can't tell me: what are the physical mechanisms that govern it? Meaning, HOW can matter have inertia in a vacuum? Is it a field? A particle? a gremlin? the will of god? why does an object in a perfect vacuum have inertia and what mechanisms can I visibly see that make it so?
Second Fact: Charge follows + and - differentials and magnetic fields follow "Flux lines"
What you can't tell me: what exactly is it that surrounds a particle that coveys it's charge through a perfect vacuum? Is it an even smaller particle? Well then... I will ask the same about that even smaller particle. What can I SEE and have have you DETECTED that can explain the purveyance of charge through nothing?
Is it magic made by Steven Hawkins? 
So what do you really know?
Not a whole lot when you think about it... |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled
The.Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Well of course Einstein was wrong
My ship moves at 3AU a second and according to him thats impossible.
In your face Einstein, in your face |
JackStraw56
Bayesian Motion
Knights of Tomorrow
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:34:00 -
[38] - Quote
It's just an error in the experiment IMO. That's the simplest explanation at this point. |
|
CCP Navigator
C C P
C C P Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
As this topic is covered in OOPE both here and here, this thread will be locked as it is off topic ofr General Discussion.
CCP Navigator - Lead Community Representative |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |