After big faster-than-light neutrino meet: “For the moment, there is no explanation that works”

Elburg's solution doesn't work for several reasons. a) satellite trajectories don't follow his simplistic case b) mapping to the satellite frame was not the problem produced by the geodesy model used Furthermore, Glashow argued that superluminal velocities would produce Cerenkov radiation, which has not been observed, nor has the spectrum of neutrinos shown that it occurred somewhere else. So we are still at square one. An observation that was made in 2007 at Fermilab, confirmed in 2011 at Gran Sasso, but has no other confirmations or theoretical explanation. This is not exceptional in science, but does show that sometimes a great number of good minds and lots of money cannot crack the mind of God. We should all take a humility pill and spend some real effort thinking about this before we publish any more trash. Robert Sheldon

“For the moment, there is no explanation that works,” says physicist Ignatios Antoniadis, who helped to organise the meeting at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, last Friday.

Well, not quite. This was posted a couple days prior...

Time-of-flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a Satellite Ronald A.J. van Elburg (Submitted on 12 Oct 2011 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2011 (this version, v3))

Michelson and Morley showed that an interference pattern is reference-frame independent. However, the distance between a particle's production and detection site is reference-frame dependent due to Lorentz contraction and detector movement. For the OPERA experiment detector movement in the satellite reference frame leads to corrections which can account for most of the ± 60 ns discrepancy between expected and observed time of flight.

Charles

Darwin was wrong about the nature of inheritance. His theory of "Pangenesis" was wrong, along with his concept of "gemmules". See Pangenesis Darwin worshipers only exist in your imagination "news". NormO

Irrelevant. Mis-posted? kairosfocus

You'r quite wrong on that. Many of us are offended by the constant Darwin worship of the most conventional evolutionary biology news, which detracts from the impression of science. (What is a cousin relationship among life forms that do not reproduce sexually, as most assume was the case with earliest ancestors? For many of us, mapping our cousins is a case of following the equals signs in the family tree. Old-fashioned, maybe. ) The physicists offer a refreshing break for all that. Incidentally, about what do YOU think Darwin was wrong? News

Darwin was wrong on a lot of details, as was Newton and so was kelvin. But of course you aren't really interested in clarifying details. You want Darwin to be wrong on the cousin relationship of eukaryotes. Or am I wrong about this? Petrushka