Bad Opera: Scientists Now Believe A Bad Oscillator May Have Slowed Speeds of Subatomic Particles

First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.

The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.

I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC

342 thoughts on “Bad Opera: Scientists Now Believe A Bad Oscillator May Have Slowed Speeds of Subatomic Particles”

  1. O.S. Ever read Paul Erlich’s book, The Population Bomb? He pointed out what some of the problem would be more than forty years ago.

    Saw another post on a website I visit and reminded me of your comment.

    Answer, no I have not. However if you are speaking of Paul R. Ehrlich (you did not include an h in the last name so I assume it was a spelling error) he was a co-author of a book written by John Holdren the Obama administrations science czar. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. O.S. where do you stand on this.

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;

    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

  2. Do you know what Envisat is ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envisat

    Question if the Arctic Ice and the Greenland Ice sheets are melting at the fastest rate ever and that melt contributes to sea level rise how can the sea level be dropping at the same time the ice is melting. There are several factors. I know do you ?

    The point is just because the Arctic and Greenland are melting at an alarming rate, which they are not, does not mean sea level will rise in lock step as we are led to believe.

    Climate Expert Joe Romm

    “It is my assessment that we have had the strongest melting since they started measuring the temperature in Greenland in 1873.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/24/206923/greenland-melting-noaa-2010-arctic-report-card/?mobile=nc

  3. Fourthly, I have no faith in your statistics anyway, you do not provide any data, you just make assertions without pointing at any science to back it up.

    I do you just fail to see it because you have confirmation bias. This is why I started the True or False.

    The meme is everything bad is increasing in numbers and in strength as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. In order for you to believe it yourself you should research it yourself. I know the answer and they are all decreasing.

    I’ll start you off with hurricanes.

    The last major hurricane to strike the US was Wilma in 2005. This is the longest period without a major hurricane strike since 1915. The last category 5 hurricane to hit the US was Andrew in 1992. World wide tropical cyclone activity remains near 30 year lows for the fourth year in row.

    The above is facts. Google yourself so you won’t be taking information from a lier. Google WORLD WIDE tropical cyclone activity 30 year lows. Google longest period on record hurricane strike U.S.

    On a side note
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/31/yes-theres-a-link-between-hurricane-irene-and-global-warming/

  4. “So we dissipate energy with a greater number of hurricanes if we cannot do it by size alone.”

    That is what my tells me.

  5. @Bdaman: First, how many people are killed by a bad weather system is a very poor proxy for the frequency or strength of bad weather systems, it has much more to do with the culture of construction and technology of prediction, safety, emergency rescue and even education in the locale where the bad weather system hits.

    Second, comparing a few hundred years of history to the last ten years, by counting, is ridiculously lop-sided. If you are going to compare, you have to compare some kind of ratios: Hurricanes per year or Hurricanes per CLASS per year (how many cat five hurricanes, how many cat four, etc). Or the same thing for tornadoes, or inches of precipitation. Or just look at measurement records broken per year and by how much, which can indicate the shape of the extreme value distribution is changing (and thus extreme values are becoming more likely).

    Even that can be misleading if too local, because climate is a global system. Scientists switched to “climate change” because the public failed to understand the implications of “global warming,” it was a bad choice of words for non-scientists. Scientists understand that it means that a warmer atmosphere, land and ocean means there is more energy to be dissipated. That does not necessarily even mean that storms will be bigger (it probably does but not necessarily), it could mean two cat five hurricanes instead of one; or one cat five and three extra cat threes: It means more total energy dissipated. More available energy means a general escalation in category, but there may be limits to how large and violent a single hurricane can be. So we dissipate energy with a greater number of hurricanes if we cannot do it by size alone.

    Thirdly, more energy to be dissipated means more water can be evaporated, it can be transported further, and air flow systems can be changed, so places get warmer, or more rainfall, or colder, with more snow. Hence “climate change” instead of global warming.

    Fourthly, I have no faith in your statistics anyway, you do not provide any data, you just make assertions without pointing at any science to back it up.

    Either you are not thinking through what should BE a valid comparison, or you are listening to people pushing invalid comparisons in order to confuse the issue. The question is about whether the amount of energy dissipated by the global weather system each year is on the rise (and energy can be dissipated by radiative heat, greater evaporation and precipitation, melting ice, warming ocean and atmosphere, longer transport, etc, it doesn’t have to be a cyclonic system).

    The more disconnected a measurement is from that, the less correlated to global energy dissipation the measurement is, the less it says about global warming. The strength of the strongest hurricane in a year is like the cost of a person’s most expensive meal in a year. The price of their most expensive meal is not strongly correlated to their annual food spending.

  6. Bdaman:

    the state of HI probably has PDF stamps made for sending info electronically and also public official signatures. Lots of professional people have their signatures in electronic format.

    I think sheriff Joe needs a little more.

  7. Tony C:

    why dont you explain to Bdaman how it works?

    I dont think he is lying, maybe he has a blind spot of knowledge.

  8. And Tony, we know that 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 according to the experts, is the upper safezone. You and I would like to see it below 300 ppm like it was around 1900. With that said do you think it would be a stable environment as you suggest when The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. 24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm. The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Tony calling me a liar will not change the facts of history. Only dishonest men can do that and only fools will believe it.

    http://www.epicdisasters.com/

  9. We just have a little communication problem Tony, that’s all.

    Your right, my bad. There are lots of publishers/directors/captains but there is only one commandant. 🙂

  10. Do you think he can make it happen.

    James Hansen predicts 2012 will be the hottest year on record.

    Dr James Hansen, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    2010 will turn out to have been “the hottest year on record”.

    Record heat ties 2005 — the previous hottest year on record.
    The man leading the report was infamous climatologist James Hansen

    I could go on and on and on. But remember we have Phil Jones with the HADCRUT3 and the CRUTEM3 no statistical warming in the last 15 years but everything on this side of the pond is hottest on record.

  11. @Bdaman: There is no “the” publisher, there are literally thousands of journals. If Hansen was “The” publisher, how did Bassett and Lin get published in the first place? You are fool living in a fantasy and you do not know how academia works.

  12. Mee thinks Tony you are proving to be a fraud as a so called scientist. Every time the record is posted Hansen is quoted, Every time Tony. Then you didn’t even know he was an expert.

    ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2012) — The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists.

    “We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said GISS Director James E. Hansen.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120119152353.htm

  13. @Bdaman: And you cut and paste this to make what point, exactly? Hansen sounds like a typical scientist to me, not some puppeteer. His backhanded arrogance is par for the course for many scientists; he was just asserting that he knew the physics better than Bassett and Lin.

    There is no gatekeeper, you are a liar.

  14. Tony I honestly don’t know how you claim to be a scientist but yet do not know the inner workings of James Hansens job.

    You claim that Hansen is not consulted every time an inferred temperature timeline is published. He is the publisher. He is the director of this cruise ship and you are under is command. What you should do is take a listen too so you will understand. So come along and ride on a fantastic voyage.

  15. Is having insider information like insider trading.

    Bassett and Lin found the statistical odds of a new temperature record to be small.[15] Hansen countered by saying that having insider information shifts the odds to those that know the physics of the climate system, and that whether there is a new temperature record depends upon the particular data set used.[16]

    **********************************************************************************************

    James E. Hansen (born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

    The first GISS global temperature analysis was published in 1981. Hansen and his co-author analyzed the surface air temperature at meteorological stations focusing on the years from 1880 to 1985. Temperatures for stations closer together than 1000 kilometers were shown to be highly correlated, especially in the mid-latitudes, which provided a way to combine the station data to provided accurate long-term variations. They conclude that global mean temperatures can be determined even though meteorological stations are typically in the Northern hemisphere and confined to continental regions. Warming in the past century was found to be 0.5-0.7 °C, with warming similar in both hemispheres.[13] When the analysis was updated in 1988, the four warmest years on record were all in the 1980s. The two warmest years were 1981 and 1987.[14]

    With the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, 1992 saw a cooling in the global temperatures. There was speculation that this would cause the next couple years to be cooler because of the large serial correlation in the global temperatures. Bassett and Lin found the statistical odds of a new temperature record to be small.[15] Hansen countered by saying that having insider information shifts the odds to those that know the physics of the climate system, and that whether there is a new temperature record depends upon the particular data set used.[16]

    The temperature data was updated in 1999 to report that 1998 was the warmest year since the instrumental data began in 1880. They also found that the rate of temperature change was larger than any time in instrument history, and conclude that the recent El Nino was not totally responsible for the large temperature anomaly in 1998. In spite of this, the United States had seen a smaller degree of warming, and a region in the eastern U.S. and the western Atlantic Ocean had actually cooled slightly.[17]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

  16. @Bdaman: You are just lying. There are plenty of thermometers you fool, what the hell do you think one is? Trapped mercury in a glass tube is a way of inferring the temperature by interpreting physics, but it isn’t the only means of inferring temperature with physics, there are dozens of temperature controlled reactions that suffice just as well and leave a permanent record. ALL temperatures are inferred from physical reactions.

    Hansen is not consulted every time an inferred temperature timeline is published, and publication does not require his consent. You are lying. As usual, when reality doesn’t go your way, you will just resort to outright lies.

  17. Tony says, ” I know a lot of scientists, and I do not know a single one that would lie about their observations”

    Thats good Tony. Are we to assume based on your experience all scientist are like the ones you know?

    Scientist Hwang May Have Lied About Stem Cell Research Results
    Seoul, South Korea (LifeNews.com) — A Korean television station whose investigative report was the nail in the coffin that prompted human cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk to admit he lied about egg donations his researchers made says he may have lied about the results of his research as well.

    Oh and lets no forget the most recent.

    Scientist Says He Lied to Obtain Documents From Climate Skeptic Group.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientist-lied-obtain-documents-climate-skeptic-

  18. Ok Tony bye bye.

    Wow people just can’t have a discussion today without getting all upset. Everyone that follows the GW debate knows that where there are no thermometers the temperature has to be added. The addition has a human finger that pencils the figure in. James Hansen is the person with the finger. No need to get upset. What do you think he gets paid to do. Jeesh.

Comments are closed.