UPDATE 16 March 2012
ICARUS experiment at Gran Sasso laboratory reports new measurement of neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

I like this link http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/relativity.htm It made me think about the crux of this issue. “The formula shows the equivalence of mass and energy and illustrates the fact that an increase in mass (m) is accompanied by an increase in energy (E) by mc2. The formula also shows an increase in energy (E) results in an increase in mass (m) by E/c2. In other words, as an object accelerates by gaining energy, it gains mass. As the object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity. An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate an object to the speed of light, so the speed of light acts as a speed limit for matter.” Aren’t the neutrinos created from a high speed collision? And aren’t they a by product of the energy that is generated by CERN plus the collision? So they are not truly gaining energy and or mass since they are being created at a constant speed close to 98%c. So for them to be going faster than c does not require one to assume they are being accelerated from a relative speed of zero to v + c.

So the problem is really just the interpretation of relativistic mass being associated with a velocity not an acceleration. The only energy increase required to make these particles accelerate to 98%c +v could be explained by the collision.

Reality is more complex — a COUNTER-EXAMPLE exists that PROVES that (though Einstein’s postulates are correct), Einstein’s claim of having derived the Lorentz transformations is wrong, yes a COUNTER-EXAMPLE — and at least one Nobel prize winner takes this realization seriously. See http://physicsnext.org/ for details, a very simple read, but majority be warned… facing physics reality regarding the foundations could disturb a mediocre mind and make you react emotionally…for example, Howard Georgi got very angry!

I was viewing your comment about inspirational thinkers and pluggers as an either / or dichotomy, and this may have been false.

The best scientists, it seems, were both.

That is all making my brain hurt, and reminding me why I went into Biochemistry instead.

I think I have at least worked out the source of my confusion.

What I thought was happening was that the GPS signal was used to calibrate a clock that was then physically transferred from CERN to OPERA to give both start and end points a common time reference. So I was thinking that the only relevant observers were at CERN and OPERA (and hence stationary with respect to the Earth’s surface), because this is where they made the measurements. What had not occurred to me is what you seem to be saying, which is that the GPS satellite that provided the time reference was a more pertinent “observer” than the instrumentation at CERN and OPERA.

Is it, or not really?