Timeline for Is it fair to desk-reject a manuscript because it breaks relativity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2023 at 16:43 | comment | added | LeopardShark | @NAMcMahon (1) Look up distance to moon. (2) Double it to get round-trip distance. (3) Time a pulse reflecting off the moon. (4) Forget about step 2. (5) Halve the time to get one-way time. (6) Divide these numbers, yielding c = 6×10⁸. | |
| S Mar 22, 2023 at 6:56 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy edited. [(its = possessive, it's = "it is" or "it has". See for example <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc&t=1m20s> and <https://www.wikihow.com/Use-Its-and-It%27s>.)]
|
| Mar 22, 2023 at 2:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 22, 2023 at 6:56 | |||||
| Mar 20, 2023 at 17:51 | comment | added | N A McMahon | The LHC-faster than light neutrino paper was actually the reason I said experimental papers should be given more leyway than theory papers. If reality violates our theories, no matter how nice/beautiful our theories are, then we need new theories. Though if an experiment says I timed a pulse of light reflecting off the moon with a stopwatch and got the speed of light is 6*10^8 m/s then the experiment is probably wrong. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 10:07 | comment | added | mlk | I think the LHC-faster than light-neutrino paper ( link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)093 ) is a good example on how to do it properly. They had a result that broke relativity and they focused the whole thing on ruling out mistakes in the measurements. (Or at least, all mistakes except for a loose cable) | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 8:56 | history | answered | N A McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |