AH I love a Luddite, only because I like humor.
And who of us is not hooked on watching the human race, learning about it.
It has been fun.
But not enough to keep my attention.
Debating with a telegraph pole is time wasting enjoy.

Hi SPQR,
Been a bit busy or I would have responded earlier.
You obviouly missed my point and went rushing off to refute my example, rather than to focus on the issue.
Any, to fill in the gaps in your own bit of research, here is the reference to CERN research refuting the faster than the speed of light hypothesis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8905322/Speed-of-light-experiment-was-wrong-after-all.html
Do try to keep up with the real world, there's a good chap.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Any thing that makes it to the front page of u tube, is all crap.
Not one mention of any emails on the news services. Some are clinging on to straws, in a raging torrent. Has-been won't even answer his own topic.

Hi Anthony,

<<Been a bit busy or I would have responded earlier>>

Yep! I've seen some of your work on other threads.
Though to be honest, I wouldn't have judged any of them as requiring too much time or thought!

<< Any, to fill in the gaps in your own bit of research, here is the reference to CERN research refuting the faster than the speed of light hypothesis.>>

You're really a funny fellow Anthony.

You started off warning against media hype:
<<"The publicity was substantial...But, sans the media involvement...>>

Then, what do you do when you find you've painted yourself into a corner?

Your run off to find a supporting source:
Not Science.
Not Nature.
Not even, NewScientist.
But the tabloid Telegraph!

That was your first mistake (in the latest post).

Your next mistake, was to assume that because a second group of scientists *claim* they've found a different result to the first.
The first groups results are immediately and irredeemably overturned-- it ain't necessarily so!

There have been findings both pro and con. And there will need to be a whole series of checks and counter-checks and re-tests, before any solid conclusions can be reached--but you would have known that being a expert on the scientific method!

Hey Anthony, do science a favour, please, stop talking on its behalf.
Your talents are better suited for other pursuits -- like, um, re-interpreting Tolkien!

Hi SPQR,
The length and detail of your response, none of which relates to the issue, indicates... well, I'm not sure. Certainly an inability to focus on the topic itself.
My dear fellow, as I've endeavoured to point out before, this is not about me; these debates never are.
Yet you insist on making it about me. Indeed you go to considerable lengths to do so.
If I thought your efforts reflected any importance on my part I would be flattered.
However, I know better.
I am content to debate the issues, of which, to repeat, I am not one.
So, please do try to stick to the issue at hand; your obsession with me is, frankly, bordering on weird.
I shall now cancel notifications relating to this topic, as the the thread has been drawn sufficiently far from the topic as to make it simply boring.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Somehow, science & academia are always portrayed as positive. Non-scientific & non-academic influence has not resulted in as much negative influence over centuries as has science & academia. Yes, there are positives but they're a long way short of deserving to occupy the top of the pedestal.
As for funding science I say fund it as you'd fund every other enterprise & when a significant positive discovery is made then funding will be a non-issue. What gets to me is the huge salaries some of these perpetual non-productive scientists get. Put them on a good wage & let's see what they can do. Remember some of the most significant positive invention/discoveries were made by non-academics without the benefit of funding. They used brains rather than others' money.