Received from IVP at 10/16/11 03:32 UTC:

>>It's not the best analogy, but it does indicate that frame of reference i=
s=20
>>important
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>my thinking was that relativity effects on GPS satellites and their slower=
=20
>timekeeping is well understood and is compensated for, as your bunny watch=
er=20
>would need to do
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
>
>Refering to the section 'Precise Monitoring'
>
>I don't know what system CERN uses, but you might think it 'obvious' that=
=20
>they'd first suspect GPS errors.  They must surely have access to=20
>terrestrial clocks to determine propagation and latency times of their=20
>equipment, and especially before announcing a faster-than-light event
>
>Joe


Hi Joe,

Yes, it seems fairly obvious once explained after the fact.  One would thin=
k=20
the folks at CERN would have taken that into account.  But thinking of it a=
nd=20
then implementing it properly in software might be two different things.  I=
=20
think we had a NASA probe go astray years back over the use of US Customary=
=20
vs CGS units in a single calculation.  And then there was the hardware=20
problem with the Hubble mirror.  Explanations for both fairly easily=20
comprehended by laymen after the fact, but missed - or mis-implemented - at=
=20
the time by the experts.  So complete omission or incomplete implementation=
,=20
I don't know.

Anyhow, the article accounted for the deviation from Einstein's theory, but=
 I=20
don't recall it saying explicitly that they had actually found that this ha=
d=20
been demonstrated to be *THE* actual source of error.  The article says,=20
"...but they MAY [emphasis mine] have forgotten one critical thing:=20
relativity."  I'd guess they did verify it wasn't accounted for, but are=20
being careful pending peer review.

Bottom line?  You won't go broke betting on Einstein.  ;-)


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.