Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.

Faster-than-light neutrinos face time trial

Did gravity mess with the clocks that measured particles breaking cosmic speed limit?

"Since the OPERA group's 22 September announcement, more than 30 papers attempting to explain the result using various exotic theoretical models have been posted to the physics preprint server at arXiv.org. But one paper2, posted on 28 September by theorist Carlo Contaldi of Imperial College London, bears the distinction of being the first to challenge the experimental calculations.

The OPERA team timed the neutrinos using clocks at each location that were synchronized using GPS (Global Positioning System) signals from a single satellite. Contaldi's paper says the group's calculations do not take into account one aspect of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity: that slight differences in the force of gravity at the two sites would cause the clocks to tick at different rates.

Because of its location relative to the centre of Earth, the CERN site feels a slightly stronger gravitational pull than Gran Sasso. Consequently, a clock at the beginning of the neutrinos' journey would actually run at a slower rate than a clock at the end. "It would reduce the significance of the result," Contaldi says."

For more information, link:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/ … 1.575.html

Some points not considered at previous posting:

When we extract the square root of any number, we have two results.

Nothing prevents the result is -7,903,000 m / s.

That's the difference between Mathematics and Physics. The neutrino came from a radius smaller than that of arrival. In other words, his trip was "going up the hill."

Under these conditions must occur a loss of speed and a gain in kinetic and potential energy. There is no "extra energy" at stake in this experiment.

But if the result is consistent, some things must be considered:

a) The light (or electromagnetic waves from satellites) walked at speed C.
b) The difference may be negative at CERN. Computational error?
c) The speed of gravity have to be much larger than C.

Newton Explains?

An OPERA inspired classical model reproducing superluminal velocities

Bogusław Broda

Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Šódź, Pomorska 149/153,
PL–90-236 Šódź, Poland

"Our model is purely classical and dynamics free. No new physics, nor quantum
mechanics, nor even (classical) wave mechanics is involved. Only standard
classical kinematics notions as well as the statistical method of the
maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) are used in our approach."


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 … 0644v3.pdf

cannon
V1 = [6300000 x cos46] 2 x pi x / 24 x 3600 s = 318.256 m / s

target
V2 = [6300000 x cos42] 2 x pi x / 24 x 340.471 x = 3600 m / s

Speed ​​difference = 340.471 m / s - 318.256 m / s = 22.215 m / s


Difference in speed in relation to terrestrial parallels

22.215 m / s x cos45 = 15.708 m / s


Velocity difference in relation to terrestrial meridians

22.215 m / s x cos45 = 15.708 m / s



Total difference of speeds = sqr (15.708^2 +  15.708^2)
= 22.215 m / s

question:

The difference of space in Italy was approximately 20 meters

Velocity = space??? :shock:

The Earth as a particle accelerator



Almost all trials to calculate the speed of neutrinos, presented so far, we believe that there was loss of speed for error calculations. (A lot of pretense, no?)

Now consider that, in fact, there was an increase of speed in these particles.

Without the use of elaborate hypotheses that "explain" the gain in speed of neutrinos, we know that the laboratory is in the Italian underground.

We found no difference in elevation value of these laboratories in the network, but we know that when a body approaches the radius of the Earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy, otherwise the law of conservation of energy is violated.



Ok, above our present problem in proportional scale. The distance between the laboratory and the Swiss Italian laboratory is approximately 730 km. This represents an arc of 6 degrees.



To better visualization the problem, we change the aspect ratio of the original situation, but keep the numerical values ​​closer to the real, as shown above.

We believe that the Swiss lab is the 6 300 000 m from the center of the Earth.

As we know that the Italian laboratory is closer to the center of the earth, and to assure that the speed gain of neutrinos during their "down", we, from the known data, deducing the value of "h".

According to data collected on the Web, neutrinos from Switzerland at a speed very close to "c", ie, the speed of light in vacuum.

c = 299799 846.741 m / s

The gain in speed of arrival of neutrinos in the Italian laboratory, after a voyage of 732 000 m was approximately 388.741 7 663 m / s.

Therefore, the speed of arrival of neutrinos became:

vn = c + 7 663 388.741 m / s = 299 807 235.5 m / s

We start now to the calculation of h:

c ^ 2 / r = (vn) ^ 2 / (r-h)

See board below:



310 meters deep, a very interesting result.

jaquecusto wrote:

Geodesy ERROR???

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/image … 064521.jpg

At terrestrial equator, the tangential acceleration "atg" is aprox. 720 microns/sec^2

Last edited by jaquecusto (2011-11-02 13:07:59)

Consider that, in fact, neutrinos gain speed between Geneva and Gran Sasso. It would take a potential difference to make that happen.

Consider there´s a difference in gravitational potential at trip. But we know that the geodesy team must have worked hard for to keep the same distance from the center of the Earth for swiss lab and italian lab.

I went in search of a gravitational asymmetry between the two cities.

We know that mountains change the plumb in topography instruments, as there is enough mass to change gravity.



Just take a quick look at the graph. The upper (red line) indicates the difference in altitude between the laboratory and the Swiss mountain peak where the Italian laboratory.

At the bottom, the green arrows indicate when the neutrinos gain speed and red arrows indicate when the neutrinos lose speed.

The asymmetry is there: top green line of the graph. The Gran Sasso hills attracts the superluminal neutrinos. See GOCE ESA Earth's Gravital Anomaly Report.

Geneva

Coordinates: 46.198392 ° N 6.142296 ° E
Maximum Altitude: 1263 feet

Gran Sasso

Coordinates: 42.469277 ° N 13.564976 ° E
Maximum Altitude: 9393 feet

Full Path: 447.7 miles

Earth's Gravitational Anomaly



Source:

GOCE - ESA

Last edited by jaquecusto (2011-11-26 13:05:16)

Newton go away, Maxwell(or Weber) arrives.

Up to now, we investigate the gravitational potential for the neutrinos gain velocity .

From what has been speculated, the montains of Gran Sasso revealed a subtle asymmetry in the way of neutrinos. The symmetry exists and works for the speed gain.

The question of speed gain due to the variation of the radius of the Earth is totally offsets, because neutrinos "down" until the mid-term way and "rise" out of the way until they reach the destination.

The Earth's rotation does not help. The Gran Sasso target moves away from the cannon during the trip of neutrinos. The route is increased. This phenomenon causes a delay in the arrival of the particles in Italy.

We think, in coarse mode, we can say that the potential energy (contained in gravity) and kinetic (ground motion) have been well considered. Their actions are small and inconsistent. Little of this remains to accelerate the speed of neutrinos.

We went in search of other "asymmetries". And we come across the Earth's magnetic field.

The density of the Earth's magnetic field is variable. The number of force lines per area is maximum at the poles and minimum at the equator.

Depending on the position between the laboratory and the Swiss Italian laboratory, neutrinos are a combined motion:



"Horizontal" East to West; "Vertical": North to South



The vertical movement is what interests us.

In the manner that neutrinos move to Italy, the tangential magnetic field decreases.

According to Maxwell, when the magnetic field decreases, the electric field increases.

Thus, neutrinos can gain speed by varying electric and magnetic field, just as with the protons within the Swiss particle accelerator.

This is a speculative hypothesis of great potential and deserves to be better analyzed.

Last edited by jaquecusto (2011-12-03 18:52:12)

EUREKA! EURECA?

During these months, since the announcement of the breaking of the speed of light neutrinos, we went through three seasons:

The first season, we concentrated our focus on the earth gravity, because the difference in particle velocity was almost equal to the weightlessnes speed on earth.

At this stage, we focus on surveying possible errors that could lead to a slope of 310 meters between Switzerland and Italy.

In the second season, we assume that the geodesic team that advised the project would not have made a mistake so stupid and went in search of other asymmetries.

In the third season, we found two small asymmetries:

-The Gran Sasso's relievo causes a slight gravity asymmetry.

-The distribution of the Earth's magnetic field decreases so that the neutrinos are heading towards the equator.

American MINOS experiment compared the European OPERA experiment, based on photos:

MINOS

The MINOS experiment was conducted in 2006. The path of neutrinos is of Batavia (Illinois) to Soudan (Minnesotta. The total distance is 735 km




[b OPERA [/b]

The OPERA experiment has been done for years. The path of neutrinos is between Geneva and Gran Sasso. The total distance is 732 km.



In the photo below, indicate the origin and direction of each experiment:



Blue: the neutrinos leave Chicago and go to the northwest.

Red: separation distance between the two experiments

Green: neutrinos will leave Geneva and southwest.

It is very clear that the Earth's magnetic asymmetry in the experiments did not interfere, otherwise neutrinos Chicago would have to travel below the speed of light.

Both the first and second experiments, there was an increase in the speed of neutrinos.

Considering that the metrology experiments were well controlled, we deduce:

If no sufficient external ground forces to increase the energy of neutrinos, how these particles gains kinetic energy?

Do not think it should be in violation of the principle of conservation of energy.

There can be only one explanation: neutrinos left the accelerator with a balance of positive energy.

Particle accelerators are torture chambers: the particles are subjected to an absurd increase of energy. And there is no way to dissipate this energy into the chamber, because the particles are required to keep the velocity field of the accelerator.

If the energy of neutrinos were not totally "returned" to the accelerator, neutrinos "burned" (or changed) this power only after the release of the camera, in the form of kinetic energy.

If the path of the OPERA experiment was greater than the path of the MINOS experiment, we would have to confirm this last hypothesis, since neutrinos need a long interval time to dissipate the extra energy ..

One more detail:

If gravity did not interfere in the path of neutrinos, for in fact gravity does not exist, we have the triumphant return of the honorable crackpot theory of radius terrestrial expansion .

"Like a old whine, old but very good article..."

RETHINKING RELATIVITY

BY TOM BETHEL

No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of modern physics -- Einsteins Theory of Relativity in particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the twentieth century.

NOTE:
Tom Van Flanderns article, titled The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say, is provided as a Web Page on this Website.

Special Relativity, as opposed to the General Theory (1916), is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it has been confirmed over and over again. But several dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending complications of Relativity. Their arguments can be understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these dissidents, Peter Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS, August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993). The present article introduces new people and arguments. The subject is important because if Special Relativity is supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light.

The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also publishes Meta Research Bulletin which supports promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy. In the 1990s, he worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose before GPS was even launched. Special Relativity gave Einsteinians reason to doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine (But more on that later).

The publication of his article is a breakthrough of sorts. For years, most editors of mainstream physics journals have automatically rejected articles arguing against Special Relativity. This policy was informally adopted in the wake of the Herbert Dingle controversy. A professor of science at the University of London, Dingle had written a book popularizing Special Relativity, but by the 1960s he had become convinced that it couldnt be true. So he wrote another book, Science at the Crossroads (1972), contradicting the first. Scientific journals, especially Nature, were bombarded with his (and others) letters.

An editor of Physics Letters A promised Van Flandern that reviewers would not be allowed to reject his article simply because it conflicted with received wisdom. Van Flandern begins with the most amazing thing he learned as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale: that all gravitational interactions must be taken as instantaneous. At the same time, students were also taught that Einsteins Special Relativity proved that nothing could propagate faster than light in a vacuum. The disagreement sat there like an irritant, Van Flandern told me. He determined that one day he would find its resolution. Today, he thinks that a new interpretation of Relativity may be needed.

The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Suns pull reaches us, the Earth will have moved on for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Suns pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earths pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces would be to double the Earths distance from the Sun in 1200 years. Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.

Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its pull from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.

It might seem strange that something so fundamental to our understanding of physics can still be a matter of debate. But that in itself should encourage us to wonder how much we really know about the physical world. In certain Internet discussion groups, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is What is the speed of gravity?, Van Flandern writes. It is heard less often in the classroom, but only because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question. They understand the argument that it must go very fast indeed, but they also have been trained not to let anything exceed Einsteins speed limit.

So maybe there is something wrong with Special Relativity after all. In The ABC of Relativity (1925), Bertrand Russell said that just as the Copernican system once seemed impossible and now seems obvious, so, one day, Einsteins Relativity theory will seem easy. But it remains as difficult as ever, not because the math is easy or difficult (Special Relativity requires only high-school math, General Relativity really is difficult), but because elementary logic must be abandoned. Easy Einstein books remain baffling to almost all. The sun-centered solar system, on the other hand, has all along been easy to grasp.

Nonetheless, Special Relativity (which deals with motion in a straight line) is thought to be beyond reproach. General Relativity (which deals with gravity, and accelerated motion in general) is not regarded with the same awe. Stanfords Francis Everitt, the director of an experimental test of General Relativity due for space-launch next year, has summarized the standing of the two theories in this way: I would not be at all surprised if Einsteins General Theory of Relativity were to break down, he wrote. Einstein himself recognized some serious shortcomings in it, and we know on general grounds that it is very difficult to reconcile with other parts of modern physics. With regard to Special Relativity, on the other hand, I would be much more surprised. The experimental foundations do seem to be much more compelling. This is the consensus view.

Dissent from Special Relativity is small and scattered. But it is there, and it is growing. Van Flanderns article is only the latest manifestation. In 1987, Peter Beckmann, who taught at the University of Colorado, published Einstein Plus Two, pointing out that the observations that led to Relativity can be more simply reinterpreted in a way that preserves universal time. The journal he founded, Galilean Electrodynamics was taken over by Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut (Physics), and is now edited by Cynthia Kolb Whitney of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts. Hayden held colloquia on Beckmanns ideas at several New England universities, but could find no physicist who even tried to put up an argument.

A brief note on Einsteins most famous contribution to physics -- the formula that everyone knows. When they hear that heresy is in the air, some people come to the defense of Relativity with this question: Atom bombs work, dont they? They reason as follows: The equation E = mc2 was discovered as a byproduct of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (True). Relativity, they conclude, is indispensable to our understanding of the way the world works. But that does not follow. Alternative derivations of the famous equation dispense with Relativity. One such was provided by Einstein himself in 1946. And it is simpler than the relativistic rigmarole. But few Einstein books or biographies mention the alternative. They admire complexity, and cling to it.

Consider Clifford M. Will of Washington University, a leading proponent of Relativity today. It is difficult to imagine life without Special Relativity, he says in Was Einstein Right? Just think of all the phenomena or features of our world in which Special Relativity plays a role. Atomic energy, both the explosive and the controlled kind. The famous equation E = mc2 tells how mass can be converted into extraordinary amounts of energy. Note the misleading predicate, plays a role. He knows that the stronger claim, is indispensable, would be pounced on as inaccurate.

Is there an alternative way of looking at all the facts that supposedly would be orphaned without Relativity? Is there a simpler way? A criterion of simplicity has frequently been used as a court of appeal in deciding between theories. If it is made complex enough, the Ptolemaic system can predict planetary positions correctly. But the Sun-centered system is much simpler, and ultimately we prefer it for that reason.

Tom Van Flandern says the problem is that the Einstein experts who have grown accustomed to Minkowski diagrams and real relativistic thinking find the alternative of universal time and Galilean space actually more puzzling than their own mathematical ingenuities. Once relativists have been thoroughly trained, he says, its as difficult for them to rethink the subject in classical terms as it is for laymen to grasp time dilation and space contraction. For laymen, however, and for those physicists who have not specialized in Relativity, which is to say the vast majority of physicists, theres no doubt that the Galilean way is far simpler than the Einsteinian. Special Relativity was first proposed as a way of sidestepping the great difficulty that arose in physics as a result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887). Clerk Maxwell had shown that light and radio waves share the same electromagnetic spectrum, differing only in wave length. Sea waves require water, sound waves air, so, it was argued, electromagnetic waves must have their own medium to travel in. It was called the ether. There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, Maxwell wrote, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge. As todays dissidents see things, it was Maxwells assumption of uniformity that was misleading.

The experiment of Michelson and Morley tried to detect this ether. Since the Earth in its orbital motion must plow through it, an ether wind should be detectable, just as a breeze can be felt outside the window of a moving car. Despite repeated attempts, however, no ethereal breeze could be felt. A pattern of interference fringes was supposed to shift when Michelsons instrument was rotated. But there was no fringe shift.

Einstein explained this result in radical fashion. There is no need of an ether, he said. And there was no fringe shift because the speed of an approaching light wave is unaffected by the observers motion. But if the speed of light always remains the same, time itself would have to slow down, and space contract to just the amount needed to ensure that the one divided by the other -- space divided by time -- always gave the same value: the unvarying speed of light. The formula that achieved this result was quite simple, and mathematically everything worked out nicely and agreed with observation.

The skeptical, meanwhile, were placated with this formula: I know it seems odd that time slows down and space contracts when things move, but dont worry, a measurable effect only occurs at high velocities -- much higher than anything we find in everyday life. So for all practical purposes we can go on thinking in the same old way. (Meanwhile, space and time have been subordinated to velocity. Get used to it.)

Now we come to some modern experimental findings. Today we have very accurate clocks, accurate to a billionth of a second a day. The tiny differentials predicted by Einstein are now measurable. And the interesting thing is this: Experiments have shown that atomic clocks really do slow down when they move, and atomic particles really do live longer. Does this mean that time itself slows down? Or is there a simpler explanation?

The dissident physicists I have mentioned disagree about various things, but they are beginning to unite behind this proposition: There really is an ether, in which electromagnetic waves travel, but it is not the all-encompassing, uniform ether proposed by Maxwell. Instead, it corresponds to the gravitational field that all celestial bodies carry about with them. Close to the surface (of sun, planet, or star) the field, or ether, is relatively more dense. As you move out into space it becomes more attenuated. Beckmanns Einstein Plus Two introduces this hypothesis, I believe for the first time, and he told me it was first suggested to him in the 1950s by one of his graduate students, Jiri Pokorny, at the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics in Prague. Pokorny later joined the department of physics at Pragues Charles University, and today is retired.

I believe that all the facts that seem to require special or General Relativity can be more simply explained by assuming an ether that corresponds to the local gravitational field. Michelson found no ether wind, or fringe shift, because of course the Earths gravitational field moves forward with the Earth. As for the bending of starlight near the Sun, the confirmation of General Relativity that made Einstein world-famous, it is easily explained given a non-uniform light medium. It is a well known law of physics that wave fronts do change direction when they enter a denser medium. According to Howard Hayden, refracted starlight can be derived this way with a few lines of high school algebra.? And derived exactly. The tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry of General Relativity gives only an approximation. Likewise the Shapiro Time-Delay, observed when radar beams pass close to the Sun and bounce back from Mercury. Some may prefer to try to understand all this in terms of the curvature of Space-Time, to use the Einstein formulation (unintelligible to laymen, I believe). But they should know that a far simpler alternative exists.

The advance of the perihelion of Mercurys orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercurys orbit, he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einsteins scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.

Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercurys orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerbers article was reprinted in Annalen der Physik (the journal that had published Einsteins Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerbers priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerbers formula had been published in Machs Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerbers assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerbers method made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics. Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerbers derivation was wrong through and through.

So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier. So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princetons Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, knowing the answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.

If the General Relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders, Van Flandern says. They say there must be something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects. Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to explain Mercurys orbit, but that it doesnt apply elsewhere.

The simplest way to understand all this without going crazy, Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian Relativity and to assume that there is a light-carrying medium. When a clock moves through this medium it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit. Therefore, it makes fewer ticks in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are ploughing through this medium and working more slowly. Its not time that slows down. Its the clocks. All the experiments that supposedly confirm Special Relativity do so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earths surface, where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact ploughing through the Earths gravitational field, and therefore slowing down.

Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results. So far. Now lets turn back to the Global Positioning System. At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second -- their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earths surface), and since in Einsteins theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch, Van Flandern said. They have basically blown off Einstein.

The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different reference frame, everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and its not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.

Dingles Question:

University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

Dingles Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.

The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). The fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times. But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass. So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific? --TB

Tom Van Flanderns Meta Research Bulletin ($15) and his book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets ($24.50), may be obtained from P.O. Box 15186, Chevy Chase, MD 20825; Peter Beckmanns Einstein Plus Two ($40) from Golem Press, P.O. Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306. Beckmanns book is highly technical; Van Flanderns is mostly accessible to laymen.

Tom Bethell is TASs Washington correspondent. His new book, The Noblest Triumph, was recently published by St. Martins Press.

Source:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethink … tivity.htm

Now, look this estrange relation:

Estrange Coincidence

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earths surface), and since in Einsteins theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch, Van Flandern said. They have basically blown off Einstein.

Loock this estrange mathematical relation:

Geneva - Gran Sasso trip time:

730 000 m / 300 000 000 m/s = 2,43 miliseconds

Van Flandern GPS correction time: 39 miliseconds

Estrange Relation:

2,43 ms/ 39 ms = 0,062 ms/ms = 62 nanoseconds ???

Pulsed asynchrony - An error in neutrinos test?

LHC

Perimeter = 27 km
radius = 4297.183 m

Maximum angular velocity of the protons inside the LHC = c = 299792458 m/s

Angular frequency of the protons:

(299792458 m / s) / = 27000 m

= 11103.424 revolutions per second, or

= 11103.424 Hertz

Number of turns of protons in the LHC during the netrino flight:

n = f * t

n = 11103.424 Hz * 0.002439 = 27.081 laps

The number of inaccurate turns can pose a problem:

During the course of neutrinos, there were a number of pulses the accelerator without exact numerical relationship. This causes undesirable radio "beats".

The last LHC electromagnetic pulse happens before the crossing  neutrino finish line.

More suspense in the incident of neutrinos. It seems they will capitulate to Einstein.

In an effort, let's make one more attempt to save this wretched situation, considering, first, the whole measuring system involved in the famous (or mistake it) of breaking the speed of light.



I -Switzerland-Earth-Italy Travell

a) No cosmic expansion (white route): 60 mm

b) With overall cosmic expansion (green route): 65 mm


II - Route Switzerland -Satellite-Italy

c) No cosmic expansion (white route): 39 mm + 39 mm = 78 mm

d) With overall cosmic expansion (green route): 45 mm + 42 mm = 87 mm


III - Relation of increased route Switzerland-Italy-Earth:

65 mm / 60 mm = 1.083 x

IV - Relationship of increased travel Satellite-Switzerland-Italy:

87 mm / 78 mm = 1.115 x

Conclusion: The neutrinos arrive first.

Note: It appears a small red shift in the frequency of the satellite signal.