Faster than light
philmt59 at aol.com
Thu Feb 23 13:49:19 CST 2012
Clearly, the faulty connection was consistently dropping the 60 ns bit. This is what comes of using a computer to replace a professional scientist with a good stopwatch.
On 23 Feb 2012, at 12:35, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> I suppose it could also be wrong type of fiber and modal dispersion if
> they are clocking on the falling edge of a pulse. Replacing the patch
> cord with the proper type would fix this.
> We'll never know, of course, with this level of (likely incorrect)
> detail in the reporting...
> bbruhns at erols.com writes:
>> It's either a bad cover story, or bad reporting. I think they stumbled on a tiny error in the estimate of the speed of light in vacuum, and they are shucking and jiving, and keeping the exact numbers secret until they can publish their theory about it, so that nobody beats them to it.
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>> Tacos mailing list
>> Tacos at amrad.org
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
More information about the Tacos