I'm just gonna play diplomat here and pick out this quote:

IDK, seems like an interesting line of discourse to my dilettante brain.

Much scientific theory is based around Einstein's take on light and what exactly everything he's defined is.

Essentially this forces an entire rewrite of all the books if this is found true.

The neutrinos were created at a specific time and detected at another specific time in a different place very far away. They weren't watched as they were moving.

physics, although interesting, is a pointless pursuit with limited time, its like trying to transcend to the bottom of an infintly deep ocean in search of pearls when there will never be the equipment necessary to withstand the ever increasing pressure to get to new depths and although those pearls are there, they aren't. I just go with what is logical and physics stuff is a load of bull****. The surface of things is the depth of things, because in infinity there are no surface or boundaries. All of reality is light. and ying:yang is relativity in its simplest form, it depicts contrast and change and balance between + and - light, which is what time and speed is, or something like that. What's the point of finding something out or learning that you need to learn more or soemthing changes depending on location when location is undefinable unless relative to self and so meaningless. Just look at the concept of rules being created from nothing, it is obvious they are only possible if they are completely analogue and relative to another variable. Realtive to our observation/reality, it is light, but what is light relative to? our observation, so we are trapped in this two way linear direction with observation being a higher dimension, and being ultimatly beneath the dimension of time. and excuse my non sensical badly written/expressed ramblins I 18 tablign plo whilst writing that

RED = Outer Limits Drivel

If we wanted dorm room BS, well, there are places for that.

It's not bull****, it is super logical. There will just be more and more vairables, go deep enough and what worked at a shallower view will not work anymore. How do I know? because everything is like it and I see no reason why it should change, why there should be rules, I totally beleive the speed of light can be broken, you just change the speed of light, it is variable, but the 'variableness' cannot be seen because all observation is based upon it.
So yeah what if the light barrier was borken, but the measurments were based on the speed light at one point in time/space and not the other. (speed of light is time over distance, but the universe is expanding right? Maybe light is stretching and no diffusing.) The universe has changed infintly in every nanosecond and it changes infintly analogue as you zoom in or out. This relates to the big bang, this 0d singularity everything came from, what makes everyone so sure this is not still a 0d singularity?!?!? It would sure explain how it is possible in the first place, if there was actually no change and everything was instantaneous, except light because that is what constructs reality. 'what/where is now' one can ask, somewhere between light and no light, which most liekly has infintly light:no light within it, as it must do ebcause of the within part.

anyway I'll leave it alone as I tend to just annoy people as evidenced in your post coffee monster, carry on in the futile ponderings of why everything will never make sense because everything is infinitly analogue and digital localised observation is all we have.

RED = Outer Limits Drivel

Ah. Truth is whatever you think it should be. OK.

In this thread, yeah. Maybe you'd find a home in the outer limits thread.

As opposed to just throwing up our hands and saying 'too difficult'? Yeah, I'll take trying to figure things out. BTW, there's not really any evidence one way or the other for analog versus digital.

The truth is that everything is bull$hit

mandatory logic. I can think of several good logical arguments which is proof. Depends if you define things relative to observation(light) or nothing(no light). There is evidence for both, except one is observed and one is reality. Just look at emergence, digital emerges from the analogue. i.e if you randomly placed black and white pixels on a plane, if you look closely you can see the randomness, look from far away and its a singular grey pixel, look from the perspective of a pixel and all that is true is what is relative from that pixels observation. Look through time and you get to see a 3rd axis which turns the pixels into spheres(analogue) or cubes/plankts(digital).
oh the irony. Anyway, this is futile, buddhists and hindus theorised all this **** ages ago. We are going backwards trying to find complex rules, realtivty = bladeebla, all that is relative is light:no light. When you die, the universe will cease to exist, and I for one don't want to waste it pondering into further and further complexities with no end in sight. Hindus and buddhists theorised it all ages ago through logic and here we are trying to formulate things digitally like imbeciles.

RED = Outer Limits Drivel

I don't think it's ironic you're posting in this thread rather than the outer limits thread. Just misguided.

as far fetched as my ramblings seem to you, they are relevent to 'omg wtfzors something has been recorded travelling faster than light'. Like all this hasn't already been predicted and its such big news omgz we need to change a formula because we took a closer look and its actually slightly more black than we thought it was.

to clarify on this, the truth is variable and analogue, it changes. i.e 'the universe is x old' 'the universe is x big' 'light has x speed' 'this is a universal law' 'this atom is there' 'the cat got poisoned'

RED = Outer Limits Drivel

Does this apply to the truth of that statement as well?

Fish Noob, GTFO asap. Thanks.

All clarification edits to Mt.FishNoob's post by mod in an effort to restore a sane public discussion. Mt.FishNoob is publicly warned to not post anything more in this thread and to restrict ramblings to the proper thread (Outer Limits Thread) or risk infractions. If Mt.FishNoob's posts are not deliberate trolling they certainly have the same debilitating and negative effect on the thread, other posters, and the forum as a whole, and thus deserve warning and infraction(s). Either way, stop. Thanks.

-Zeno

I didnt read all 15 pages but scanned many posts. The theory of relativity not only allows but predicts black holes. If this was the case its very possible that these subatomic particles are in some way traveling through a wormhole. Many have speculated that wormholes could exist even on earth. What if only subatomic particles could pass through them?

A million different things, this being one of them, could be the reason for the surprising results. However wormholes will be considered only after there is any evidence supposing wormholes could be the reason for the surprising results.

Bartender: "We don't serve faster than light particles here"
A faster than light particle walks into a bar.

I already heard that one next week.

Neutrinos have spin 1/2. Do you see a problem with QM if they can "carry" that spin to a future "measurement" location with higher than light speed?

masque pelase explain i dont understand

I read once in some paper on a nodal theory that the nodal structure doesn't actually require carrying the information through the pathway, but that the nodes transform to the characteristics of the moving object in question. So, there's no object per se, only energy whose dissonant or consonant energy dictates to the "universe" the characteristics of it's "being." Therefore, it is possible for the energy to carry the information through some unknown (or misunderstood) channel while maintaining it's relationship with the physically observable world. Phantom particle, anti-particle, ka, whatever, doesn't not stop at the point of observation, the observable particle simply lags or perhaps becomes separated. Something something faster than the speed of light.

Oh man, Mt.FishNoob always cracks me up.

It's so hard to read his posts and have any idea what he's talking about. That guy is legit crazy.

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

Lawl if true. Everyone in here is like groveling at the feet at the brilliant particle physicists who must know what's going on but, no, they may have made a basic error a reasonably intelligent physics undergrad would have picked up on.

That summary doesn't make a lot of sense. Wish they had a link to the actual paper--for instance, saying 32 ns at each end doesn't make sense when you're talking about the distances being changed. Also, any frame is a valid frame, so I don't know why they're making the satellites the preferred frame.

The paper itself may make sense, but the article seems to be the usual butchering of physics by a journalist.

Cause the satellite is measuring from its frame but they're using the earth's frame in the calculations?