Even the most serious minded attempt to explain curved space and black holes leaves me vaguely puzzled. And I had never understood Einstein’s contention – presuming that he made it – that nothing could move faster than light. Why? It appeared to me more of a theological statement than a measaured fact. Why? Of course, I can see it has ramifications for our observation of the universe, but why should it not be possible? I have wondered about this article of faith from time to time.
Now CERN have apparently measured some sub-atomic particles moving a bit faster than light. How jolly clever of them. I still don’t understand why they should not have been able to do that, and don’t feel anything much has changed now they have. What do we need now to adjust in our understanding of the universe? I just went to the Post Office, and it was still there.
Yes, I know Bonnie Tyler is singing “night”.
A lot of talk about what? Some particles being faster than the speed of light? By how much faster? 3m/per millisecond?
One could compare this to the speed of sperm, some are always more eager to get their first. This would mean that there is some sort of consciousness/force guiding the speed, or a slightly lesser gravity somewhere along the way??
Finally what will this change in speed mean to us mortals, the large mass of unwilling, fully educated and enabled individuals who’s existence on this earth can be measured in hundreds of years to come, if that?
Are these questions of physics, the ever expanding universe making space travel not only exhorbitant but also ever diminishing, not completely irrelevant to what should interest us?
This all questioning event deserves the Essex answer.
Whatever!
I would like to volunteer to go back in time and administer a morning after pill to Blairs mother.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8787074/Tony-Blairs-six-secret-visits-to-Gaddafi.html
Tony: The arrogance of man is unique.
.
I think, as far as is known, arrogance is a uniquely human trait so we humans win that competition by default. Although I have noticed the unparalleled ability of the giraffe to look down its nose at everyone.
.
That our incomplete understanding of the world turns out to be shown to be incomplete is just too much for all these “experts”.
.
Well, if you know better than these “experts”, whoever they are, feel free to explain it to us.
.
Scientific models are supposed to fit reality, not vice versa.
Time for some new theories. Newton’s model was a good fit until Einstein. Now we need the next. It is a form of successive approximation.
.
Well get to it then. If your theories end up being confirmed by facts then there could be a Nobel prize waiting for you.
“arrogance is a uniquely human trait”
.
You obviously haven’t met my cat.
“confirmed by facts then there could be a Nobel prize waiting for you.”
.
Nothing in the whole universe is faster then the greedy criminals putting taxpayers money into their offshore accounts.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/09/25/princess-anne-splashes-out-500k-to-land-swanky-44ft-yacht-86908-23445326/
On topic with one of Craig’s previous posts. The six arrested in Birmingham have now been charged. All sounds similar to what we have heard before.
.
25 September 2011 Last updated at 21:09
Six charged with terrorism offences
Specialist police teams searched 14 properties in the city
Six men have been charged with terrorism offences following a police operation in Birmingham last week, West Midlands Police have said.
.
Four of the men were charged with preparing for an act of terrorism in the UK, and two with failing to disclose information.
.
One of the men has additionally been charged with terrorist fund-raising.
.
The six, all from Birmingham and aged between 25 and 32, will appear at West London Magistrates’ Court on Monday.
.
Irfan Nasser, 30, of Sparkhill, and Irfan Khalid, 26, of Balsall Heath, are accused of preparing for an act of terrorism, including travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism, making a martyrdom video and planning a bombing campaign.
.
They are accused of constructing a home-made explosive device for terrorist acts and stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.
.
Ashik Ali, 26, of Balsall Heath, is accused of preparing for an act of terrorism, which involved planning a bombing campaign, providing premises for the planning of terrorist attack and stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.
.
Rahin Ahmed, 25, of Moseley, is accused of helping fund terrorist acts.
.
Mohammed Rizwan, 32, and Bahader Ali, 28, both of Sparkbrook, are both charged with failing to disclose information about potential acts of terrorism.
.
Mr Ali is also charged with providing money for the purposes of terrorism.
.
A seventh man from the city, aged 20, who was arrested on Thursday, continues to be questioned. Officers have until 29 September to charge, release or apply for further time.
.
The men were arrested as part of an operation carried out by the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit. The arrests were unarmed, pre-planned and intelligence-led.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15054790
“malign human motive” as Clark reminds us:
.
http://www.browardbulldog.org/2011/09/fbi-found-direct-ties-between-911-hijackers-and-saudis-living-in-florida-congress-kept-in-dark/
.
Thankfully we are moving closer to the truth and the downfall of the American empire.
.
“I don’t want to push you now and I don’t want to rush
We’re getting closer every second but close is not enough.”
“Ashik Ali, 26, of Balsall Heath, is accused of preparing for an act of terrorism, which involved planning a bombing campaign, providing premises for the planning of terrorist attack and stating an intention to be a suicide bomber.”
.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro!
.
Life emulates satire.
One should not pay too much attention to what scientists say. They get too much press coverage, and this only encourages them.
We all need a laugh on a Monday morning, especially with the glut of doom coming over the ether, so thought this would do the job. Pity Yvette.
.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRiRBhLnJX7t572FVCrSKtppLqf9-bEL6ZKZ9WsyvR9KtILbX0Ww
My understanding is that is all to do with tweaking the warp core nacelles before the ante matter reaches the engines..
Thanks Mary, that cheered me up, his puffed up cheeks are an indication that he never had his balls that high in the air, or his leg up, a dangerous offering to the opposing side.
Just imagine the chap coming in from the left with a stretched leg, sliding into what seemingly keeps Yvette happy….. ouch!
A wonderful question was posed in the letters pages of ‘Wireless World’, back in the days when it was a serious mag. With contributions from the like of Ivor Catt (yes that was his name). It ran like this. “If the mass of a particle goes towards infinity, as it approaches the speed of light, why don’t my living room walls collapse when I turn the light switch on!”
Ingo Ooh you are awful but I like you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Emery Many times married and father of four. Never knew that. A rotten childhood.
Nearly on-topic: Mary, could I ask a favour? Would you do some of your inimitable digging on this lot?
.
http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/people.php
The loss of predictive power is a key indicator of a failed theory.
A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn’s view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it.
Since the 1960s, the term ‘paradigm shift’ has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, and could be considered a structured form of Zeitgeist.
During the initial ‘decay-phase’ of a paradigm, it will spend increasing amounts of time -and other resources- on the following:
1 Denying the decline.
2 Avoiding the ongoing nature of the decline and treating the situation as a short-term aberration.
3 Dodging the accountability, responsibility, or consequences that result.
4 Defending the existing methods & systems.
This can go on for an extended period of time. People in these paradigms have succumbed to the pressure that exists within all successful organizations to protect the present means of operation. The ultimate outcome is a lethal combination of unyielding methods, rigid systems, inflexible behaviors, unchallenged mindsets and unquestioned assumptions.
The final step in a paradigm shift is when enough evidence accumulates to make it impossible to fit the old paradigm over it anymore. We have to surrender that previous view of ‘reality’ before we really understand the new one.
This is the most difficult part of the passage, a step that essentially requires us to let go of one trapeze and swing through the air before we grasp the next. Yet humans do it and have been doing it for thousands of years.
The Plasma Universe:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1173
There Was No Big Bang: The Proof
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1194
If the Thorium supporters and scientists would like to combine efforts with other, even more benign alternative energy providers, like DESERTEC, than this would make for a powerfull lobby.
I have no objection to thorium reactors, except for the expense and costs of building them, they could be part of the future, despite not providing what politicians want all over the world, bomb grade plutonium.
Is it possible that the speed of light had previously been incorrectly calculated ? The boiling and freezing and triple points of water have been modified many times as our ability to measure more accurately and our ability to reduce the limits of uncertainty have got better. No measurement is 100% accurate, we cant do that yet as a species. However as I understand it they did this speed run 15,000 times and had the same result each time, which makes it a statistical certainty.
Its an interesting, but not really earth shattering discovery. It will not make the smallest bit of difference to us mere mortals, well other than maybe your emails arriving 60 billionths of a second faster than you thought they did !
Ingo, there is already a link with solar concentration; the use of molten salt as the working fluid, though DESERTEC uses boiling water, doesn’t it? Some solar concentration systems use molten salts to store heat and release it over night. Industrial molten-salt pumps are available from stock.
.
I’m particularly interested in the molten salt reactors as “actinide burners”, which can productively consume the stockpiles of partly used “spent fuel”.
.
How did Bryony get to be Baroness? She’s a Labour peer. She’s worked for Friends of the Earth and she founded Sandbag which “retires” Carbon Credits, so she seems well-motivated, but who gave her the peerage and why?
I know nothing about thorium Clark. I think that the Wikipedia page on Weinberg is a good start as it explains the principle and gives his background at Oak Ridge. Of note is that Nixon sacked him. I imagine the fossil fuel giants were behind that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
.
Baroness Bryony Worthington is on the carbon trading gravy train and seems to be all things to all people – the Friends of the Earth, the government. and the private sector.
.
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/whoweare/ All very worthy I am sure.
.
Details, advantages and disadvantages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle My ‘O’ level physics in the late 50s did not extend to the study of nuclear fission!
.
Reactors have been built but none seem to be in current use.
A less rosy view:
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
Worthington is a placeperson Clark who was in the right place at the right time. Milipede Jnr promoted her to the Lords in return for her work in drafting the Climate Change Bill, 2008.
That was his remit before he rose to greater heights.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/green-economic-thinking-revenge-not-economics/
.
PS My earlier reply is awaiting a mod as I included three links. Sorry.
Sycophancy here.
.
New Labour peer Bryony Worthington is a breath of fresh air
Appointment of environmentalist bolsters House of Lords’ green credentials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/19/labour-peer-bryony-worthington
Mary, uncovering people’s connections and motivations is your specialty; I wouldn’t ask you to learn nuclear physics! Sandbag would seem to be about derailing the Carbon Credits scam, but is it really? And who are Laurence O’Hagan, JoAnne Fishburn and John Durham?
.
So far, Weinberg seems like he was pretty good. His focus on nuclear safety seems to have led to his sacking by an administration that primarily wanted plutonium for weapons.
.
Vronsky, the Eifion Rees article you linked to is demonstrably poor. To take just one example, radioactivity is inversely proportional to half-life (obvious when you think about it), so quoting long half-lives gives a big “fear factor” even though radioactivity would be low. Short half-lives mean short storage times until those isotopes become safe, so it’s the isotopes with intermediate half-lives that are really a problem. Check out the comments on this article:
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/thorium-nuclear-power
.
In particular, the existing nuclear industry may oppose molten salt reactors because there are no fuel rods that can be patented.
Sorry, Mary, I see that our comments crossed. I’m following your links now.
As I (clumsily perhaps) tried to explain in an earlier comment, the answer is probably much simpler.
The speed of light ‘C’ is being used in two separate ways.
.
The first is the theoretical maximum speed of anything in this space-time continuum (as in Einsteins famous equations) The second is a figure arrived at experimentally, obtained by measuring the speed of light in a vacuum. Scientists have rather lazily assumed that the two are identical, they seem to be wrong. For my money the ‘true’ value of ‘C’ is the speed that those neutrinos are traveling.
.
The speed of light is known to vary according to the medium through which it is passing. Scientists should be asking themselves how they can be so lacking in imagination as to assume that by measuring the speed of light in an imperfect vacuum, in a gravity well, in a magnetic field, in an area of space flooded with neutrinos from a nearby star, they have a true measure of the value of ‘C’ (the theoretical one)
.
So what seems more likely? violations of causality or an incorrect rather wooden assumption made by physicists.
.
Can I have my Nobel prize please.
To get the message over/influence the politicians?
.
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/joannefishburn JoAnne Fishburn
~~~~~
{http://www.spannerfilms.net/node/778} John Durham Producer of film Age of Stupid
.
{http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00hbhcn/Business_Daily_The_solution_to_climate_change/} Him again speaking on World Service item on thorium
.
Laurence O’Hagan is a blank.
Another matter to ponder on.
‘Antimagnet’ joins list of invisibility approaches
By Jason Palmer
Science and technology reporter, BBC News
.
The design may lead to shields that protect pacemaker wearers during MRI scans .
.
Researchers have designed a “cloak” that is invisible to magnetic fields both coming in and coming out.
.
The idea of blocking magnetic fields has been proposed before, but the new design, in the New Journal of Physics, could even hide magnetic materials.
.
It could thus find application in security or medical contexts, such as those surrounding MRI scans.
.
The approach uses superconductor layers and the “metamaterials” familiar from recent invisibility cloak research.
.
/….http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017479
“the Eifion Rees article you linked to is demonstrably poor”
.
Probably, sorry – well, it is the Guardian. But I was being lazy – it was just the first google hit. There’s loads more (as I’m sure you’re aware). Having no personal expertise I’d just point to a couple of salient facts (or I think they’re facts, and salient). (1) the global endowment of thorium is finite. Yup, it’s about 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, but it’s finite, i.e. not sustainable, so why waste time with it? (b) the stuff about ‘less radioactive than’ – is that really competent in this argument? There is medical opinion saying there is no such thing as ‘safe’ radioactivity, so ‘less’ doesn’t matter. You can’t be a little less dead.
.
http://www.helencaldicott.com/2011/05/unsafe-at-any-dose/
.
And – (shades of Python’s Spanish Inquisition) – the third of my two points is your assumptions about the distant future. We only have to look after it for 500 years? Over that sort of timescale, who is ‘we’?