# Faster than speed of light?



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 7, 2011)

Not sure how to take the column linked below, but how would this affect current scientific orthodoxies if neutrinos are going beyond the speed of light?
Gone in 60 nanoseconds - The Washington Post


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 7, 2011)

Mind-boggling.

It shows how scientific paradigms may be subject to being turned upside down from time to time. Whether this will happen in this case, remains to be seen.

Theology develops in a different way.


----------



## TimV (Oct 7, 2011)

But the so called slower light was sent from Switzerland to Italy. Nothing's been on time in Italy since Mussolini worked it out for a couple years back in the middle of the last century. Can't hardly blame light for being late in Italy.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 7, 2011)

It would be nice if such a thing would erode the confidence of internet atheists a little bit. You sometimes get the feeling that they are putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la-la" every time someone points out that _consciousness is a source of facts about conciousness_ or any other of the simple points about the idiocies of a materialistic atheistic explanation of reality.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 7, 2011)

Any Star Trek or Star Wars fan knows that things can go faster than light. DUH. 

Seriously though. If I understand what the author of this article is saying, not only will the rug of their supposed understanding be pulled out from under them, but someone has also chopped a big hole in the presuppositional floor beneath that rug.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 15, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Not sure how to take the column linked below, but how would this affect current scientific orthodoxies if neutrinos are going beyond the speed of light?
> Gone in 60 nanoseconds - The Washington Post



I think in the same way that modern understandings of black holes will. Black holes, like the speed of light, are absolute boundries that cannot be crossed. Black holes will always be there but Hawkings discovered that that is not true. His "Hawking's radiation" is energy emmited from a black hole as it shrinks, which an absolute boundry should not "shrink" or go away. But it does, I came up with a "proof" of this many many years ago.

E=MC(squared) if rearanged by algebraic methods can be rewritten as M=C(squared)/(divided by) E. E=atomic energy, so if E decreases than what happens to the overall equation for mass? It decreases, so if atomic energy decreases than mass decreases. The equation for gravity is essentially linked to mass, less mass than less gravity. So if black holes are an absolute limit to the universe that cannot go away than my "proof" says otherwise, which of course we know now. 

So all this means theologically that creation is creation and the creator is the creator. Only God is absolute not gravity or light. It is wrong to assume that the universe is self-existant, which of course these theories assume implicitly. That means that the universe requires no explanation because it is its own explanation. But we know better that for anything to be what it is the christian God must be assumed.


----------



## Tim (Oct 15, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> E=MC(squared) if rearanged by algebraic methods can be rewritten as M=C(squared)/(divided by) E



I think we need an equation editor for the PB!


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 15, 2011)

Here are some pretty interesting related to the CERN work:


http://arxiv.com/pdf/1110.2814

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1087v1


----------



## Todd King (Oct 15, 2011)

I see this as having potential for use in debunking evolutionary theory. Since evolution is supposedly based on "science," having something like this come out to turn science on its head is a great thing and may help to open minds to see that "science" doesn't have all the answers.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 15, 2011)

Tim said:


> I think we need an equation editor for the PB!



Your right, how embarrassing! It should be M=E/(divided by)C(squared). Wow what a mess up, good thing this isn't the WWW. I am horrible at spelling and math.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 17, 2011)

If light can go faster than light, then it might argue that the universe isn't as old as some argue. We don't really know if light traveling across the universe travels at a constant rate. It is just assumed.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 17, 2011)

Science hates paradigm changes. It's like when they found soft tissue in dinosaur remains. Instead of saying 'wow, these must be a lot newer than we thought,' they said, 'wow, I guess soft tissue can indeed survive a bazillion years, even though we thought we disproved that idea and decided that it couldn't'. Orthodox Christianity has remained fairly unchanged for 2000 years. Put science in the same timeframe and you will have wild oscillations touching on everything under the sun from eugenics to phrenology to the discombobulation of one's humours affecting their health. :cuckoo:


----------



## pre-seminary? (Oct 18, 2011)

As someone who has studied undergraduate Physics for 3 years before changing schools and majors I'll weigh in that if there are no experimental errors involved here the implications of this experiment are major game-changers.

That being said, I would encourage everyone to avoid the temptation to jump on the bandwagon of using the "There's some things that science just can't explain" argument too quickly. First, the experiment is yet to be verified by any other agencies and several well renowned physicists have brought up legitimate possible sources of error. For instance, when measuring speeds that even begin to approach that of light, even things like the differences in gravity at different places on earth's surface can cause discrepencies. Interestingly, the reason this is true is explained by the very theory of relativity that this experiment would supposedly contradict. This was wisely brought up here:

Gravity May Have Thrown Off Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Calculations - Forbes

It would be unfortunate if we saw this as an opportunity to argue for the limits of science only to have the experiment disproven in the coming months (years?) over which these measurements will be verified

Also, and PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, as reformed folk I think it is important not to embrace an understanding of God as one who fills the gaps that science can't. God is much more sovereign than that. He is in fact the author and designer of the laws of Physics we're discussing here. Let us be grateful that he upholds the universe in such a way that we can trust that we won't wake up one day to find that the effects of gravity have reversed and we're floating off into space (perhaps this is a silly illustration but I hope you all get the idea).


----------

