About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
But leaves me with a few questions that I think I was already asking or suggesting anyway.
1. If speed affects relativity, and distance from the core of the planet, when both factors are used and accounted for (from an airplane or shuttle flight?) does the math equal out, or is there still a time discrepancy?
2. Do you think the time discrepancy could be from matter in the air capable of flitting through the matter of the airplane and everything on it creating a form of friction or erosion?
3. Is it possible certain forms of light or light spectrums might be causing this? It's been established that light at subatomic size can send matter skittering away. Maybe this is part of what is happening to the parts that make up the clocks in these experiments?
4. Time seems to eventually wear down and/or age just about everything. Do you think that if we eliminated all other possibilities, and there was still a discrepency, that time itself is the corrosive force whittling down the materials of the clocks and and materials/substances they run off of?