The Official Science Thread

Anybody heard when or where they expect the satilite to crash today?

I have to imagine you would be able to see it streaking across the sky as it breaks up.

they are saying the Pacific now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034073

"The spacecraft orbits the Earth in 90 minutes, so even if we're off by a few minutes in the prediction - that's thousands of kilometres down range," said Mark Matney, an orbital debris scientist from Nasa's Johnson Space Center.

Experts have calculated the probability of anyone anywhere on Earth being injured by a falling UARS component as 1 in 3,200.

Some other odds:

http://funny2.com/odds.htm


Those are better odds than winning the lottery.



Odds of getting a royal flush in poker on first five cards dealt: 649,740 to 1.......Funny, I've had 2 of the electronic poker machines deal me a royal flush on the first deal.

Press release
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/Press.../PR19.11E.html

Assh0les!!

I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, but the CERN results don't necessarily discount Eintsein's theories or theoretical speed limit "c". It could just mean that we've measured the speed of light wrong or that it was incorrect to assume that c=speedoflight. These results could be confirmed, and the theortical "c" could still hold, and einstein's theories would still hold too.

Originally Posted by ride365

I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, but the CERN results don't necessarily discount Eintsein's theories or theoretical speed limit "c". It could just mean that we've measured the speed of light wrong or that it was incorrect to assume that c=speedoflight. These results could be confirmed, and the theortical "c" could still hold, and einstein's theories would still hold too.

The only problem with that (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong here) is that we've used E=mc² in calculations for nuclear reactions for years now and the math works. We know how much energy a given amount of mass has using c=3e8m/s. If c were to change that would mean the energy would change and our calculations have been wrong and we've been extremely lucky that something hasn't gone terribly wrong.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

The only problem with that (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong here) is that we've used E=mc² in calculations for nuclear reactions for years now and the math works. We know how much energy a given amount of mass has using c=3e8m/s. If c were to change that would mean the energy would change and our calculations have been wrong and we've been extremely lucky that something hasn't gone terribly wrong.

E = Energy
M = Mass
C= Speed of Light
S= ?

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

E = Energy
M = Mass
C= Speed of Light
S= ?

m/s = meters per second....

maybe c=3^8 m/s is a better way to put it...

lol

edit: The talk from this afternoon about the findings
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486?ln=en

I think the recent quakes shifted the earth's tactonic plates and threw off the GPS measurements. Large quakes have also been known to shift the axis of the Earth slightly.

Wake me up when someone proves me right.

GPS measurements? They're using a known distance.

Assuming they know the distance could be the mistake.

They are firing neutrinos through the content of the Earth from Switzerland to Italy. Not through a pipeline of specific distance. They use GPS to measure the distance between the two facilities. With GPS comes uncertainty from various sources. lol...I just threw earthquakes out there as one possible cause.

They are doing a time vs distance calculation to find speed. So either time was altered, or the speed of light was eclipsed, or someone d1cked up the distance measurement. I'm leaning towards option C.

I must have missed something then. I was under the impression this was done IN the accelerator. If someone screwed the calculations, they did it 15000 times over. The team has tested and retested to be sure of the results.

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

Assuming they know the distance could be the mistake.

They are firing neutrinos through the content of the Earth from Switzerland to Italy. Not through a pipeline of specific distance. They use GPS to measure the distance between the two facilities. With GPS comes uncertainty from various sources. lol...I just threw earthquakes out there as one possible cause.

They are doing a time vs distance calculation to find speed. So either time was altered, or the speed of light was eclipsed, or someone d1cked up the distance measurement. I'm leaning towards option C.

lol at you thinking you figured out an error in all of this.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

The only problem with that (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong here) is that we've used E=mc² in calculations for nuclear reactions for years now and the math works. We know how much energy a given amount of mass has using c=3e8m/s. If c were to change that would mean the energy would change and our calculations have been wrong and we've been extremely lucky that something hasn't gone terribly wrong.

True, but we already know space/time is nonlinear approaching c, and we've been utilizing these formulas in a region where space/time is linear.

I'm still open to the possibility of a measurement error but 15,000 repeats is pretty compelling.

In that example, yes, but we have been conducting experiments at relativistic speeds for years now in accelerators and the math still holds.