5 ms·

They obviously did take all kinds of relativistic effects into account. It's not like they forgot about relativity. It's just that they may have overlooked a hi

They obviously did take all kinds of relativistic effects into account. It's not like they forgot about relativity. It's just that they may have overlooked a higher-order effect that is usually neglected because it is so small. Something like overlooking magnetism when looking at electricity (magnetism is a relativistic effect of moving electrical charge, but since the forces involved are so small, they are easy to miss and neglect)

mrb 15y ago
Confusion, funny how you said weeks ago that "relativity cannot possibly be relevant in explaining the time difference" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3030735 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3030735 - and you downvoted me who was suggesting a relativist effect could explain the 60ns difference (although I was wrong about which particular effect)... coughitoldyousocough ;)
- jrockway 15y ago
  His name is Confusion...
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Maybe the dude read a few articles or had time to think. Using one's posting history as a "gotcha" because we humans aren't allowed to change our minds for some reason, seems like a really, really odd thing to do.
  - mrb 15y ago
    Yes. But it doesn't justify his insulting replies ("I will not explain why: please actually read..."). Next time he will hopefully be more polite.
- Confusion 15y ago
  What I meant, but I agree I didn't clearly say as much, was that completely forgetting about relativity could not possibly be the answer. At the time I was slightly annoyed at the large number of lay people who implied as much (which implies the team was being a bunch of idiots, which to seems typical of the less than respectful average attitude people have towards scientists). Those people certainly didn't have subtle effects like these in mind. So I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, because then I tend to bark at things that are not what they appear to be.

mrb 15y ago

Confusion, funny how you said weeks ago that "relativity cannot possibly be relevant in explaining the time difference" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3030735 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3030735 - and you downvoted me who was suggesting a relativist effect could explain the 60ns difference (although I was wrong about which particular effect)... coughitoldyousocough ;)

jrockway 15y ago
His name is Confusion...
drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Maybe the dude read a few articles or had time to think. Using one's posting history as a "gotcha" because we humans aren't allowed to change our minds for some reason, seems like a really, really odd thing to do.
- mrb 15y ago
  Yes. But it doesn't justify his insulting replies ("I will not explain why: please actually read..."). Next time he will hopefully be more polite.
Confusion 15y ago
What I meant, but I agree I didn't clearly say as much, was that completely forgetting about relativity could not possibly be the answer. At the time I was slightly annoyed at the large number of lay people who implied as much (which implies the team was being a bunch of idiots, which to seems typical of the less than respectful average attitude people have towards scientists). Those people certainly didn't have subtle effects like these in mind. So I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, because then I tend to bark at things that are not what they appear to be.