Einstein wrong again! New experiment confirms doubts over his speed of light theory

if this turns out to be the case

'If' is the operative word here. Several issues still need to be sorted out - things like packet spread, for example.

I have no doubt that this will finally be sorted out. That's the beauty of science. It's inherently self-correcting. But to claim that Einstein has been proven wrong is not only jumping the gun, it's highly unscientific.

Science just doesn't work like that.

This is an old article.

There have since been 2-3 calling into doubt the preliminary results.

BTW, science isn't about chasing god. Science is about the truth and there is very little (read none) regarding any god(s).

physicist:

Not only unscientific, but didn't he actually include in his theory ways for faster than light properties to be allowed? I am not an expert in the GTR, hell the tensor math of it gives me headaches lol, but I do remember reading about that.

Jonathan:

I am not an expert in the GTR, hell the tensor math of it gives me headaches lol,

Headaches? You get only headaches? I have massive lobe explosions! This is why I will never have the honor of being any more than a lay student of science.

But even from my limited perspective, I disagree with declaring Einstein "wrong". He left the world with his work incomplete, as all scientists do - and other scientists pick up the work and carry it on.

but didn't he actually include in his theory ways for faster than light properties to be allowed?

Absolutely, Jonathan.

Einstein said that a particle with mass (rest mass, to be completely accurate) couldn't accelerate to the speed of light, because it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so.

But faster-than-light is not prohibited by special relativity. For example, it's assumed that tachyons travel faster than light.

Why do you think HE put you on this planet?..............-

You believe that God put us on this planet. You don't know that he did.

May be you'll find out in another couple hundred years!

He might found out or he might not.

You are correct; even if these experiments do in fact invalidate a chunk of the GTOR, that's not the point.  Einstein immeasurably contributed to human knowledge, but no level of knowledge is ever complete.

I look at it this way: Aristotle, Keppler, and Bohrs were all wrong (or at least incomplete) in their knowledge.  But each was brilliant, and each advanced the sum total of human knowledge.  We all, as the saying goes, stand on the shoulders of giants.

funny thing is, when one considers WHO contributes to the betterment of mankind, it's the scientists, the men that have put aside the dogma of superstition. and when one considers WHO contributes to the shackling of human creativity, it's the religions.

Some day people like me will be a majority, and the current mythologies will take their place with the mythologies of the Norse, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc, etc, etc. and not be replaced with yet more mind shackling beliefs.

SciThinker,

From your lips to Gods ear........;)

My comment was, of course, "tongue-in-cheek", but your responses are admirable.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon (like I needed to write that...)

Why did such creativity have to be nipped in the bud, before it has even had the opportunity to grow to maturity? How much more, and greater, could have been created? I also think of Mozart, besides Lennon, when I say this.

By the way, for many of us, you need not have said more than just the one word "Imagine" to have thought about John Lennon.

look at Mozarts life style " it all catches up " " chickens come home to roost "

Maybe if he didn't live that life of debauchery he wouldn't have been so creative?

It's interesting that experiments have proven that one's brain can function better when listening to the music of Mozart rather than that of other composers. I tell students that listening to rap while studying impedes their cognitive abilities, and they should listen to Mozart played quietly in the background to enhance their ability to comprehend and remember.

My opinion also comes from the experience of listening to certain classical music while reading a book. Whenever I think of the book, I think of that particular piece of music, and whenever I hear that music, I think of that book. I can recall both much better due to the combination rather than a book I read in silence or music I listened to without reading anything. Is it some kind of positive reinforcement?

Sorry Biotronics, I really went off on a tangent there.

Only fools believe in gods. Throughout our history we have invented thousands of them. Is it now that we believe in the most popular one? Fools!

I neither agree nor disagree with your comment, cjcold, but it is not an immature and ignorant comment to call persons who do not have the same beliefs as yourself "fools"? Why would you want to advertise?

but it is not an immature and ignorant comment to call persons who do not have the same beliefs as yourself "fools"?

As far as completely discounting the possibility of some sort of supreme being, I believe that it is. The existence of such a being cannot be proven or disprove with certainty. I'm as irritated by Atheists that claim to know God does not exist as I am by Christians that claim to know that he (or she) does.

redphish Tell me, how convinced are you by " Cross species evolution "? and can be envision what can be classified as the " Ultimate evolution for Man"?

Tell me, how convinced are you by " Cross species evolution "? and can be envision what can be classified as the " Ultimate evolution for Man"?

I am convinced that "cross species evolution" is the best conclusion based on the current evidence available. Time will tell if it will stand as we find new evidence and our insight into what ir means develops. As for the Biblical creation story, there is not a shred of evidence supporting it.

I am convinced that "cross species evolution" is the best conclusion based on the current evidence available. The End

Due to inability to reasson

Due to inability to reasson

I guess when you can't come up with a reasonable response to an argument, insults are you are left with.

Eagle, by "cross-species evolution", do you mean speciation (the origin of new species via evolution)?

If so, that has been observed.

There is on "ultimate evolution of man" in evolutionary theory. That's based on a common misunderstanding, and an old one. Evolution is not directed towards some final goal, it is just change in a population over time as a result of variation in heritable traits, selection, and drift.

Belfrey Nice Thank you for reading what was posted. ok

1) Cross Species : what I means by that is the Idea that Mutations caused a change from one species to another, now mutational evolution is discounted by most.

2) Ultimate Evolution : the State where Man has Evolved to be ably to use Science to create Life at will, and also the ability to terraform astral bodies for those lifeforms.

And on the last point indeed the development cannot ceaseas long as that organism is alive since the niche will always undergo changes. But here is catch 22: For an organism to make the needed changes it need a FLUX: Pressure to make changes by the environment that organism inhabits, on the other hand, for an organism to be ably to successfully develop in a niche, the niche has to be stable so that any changes to the organism are advantageous to it, else the energy used will be more then that needed for survival so it will go extinct.

1) Cross Species : what I means by that is the Idea that Mutations caused a change from one species to another,

Well, that has been observed in extant organisms.

now mutational evolution is discounted by most.

Certainly not by biologists.

2) Ultimate Evolution : the State where Man has Evolved to be ably to use Science to create Life at will, and also the ability to terraform astral bodies for those lifeforms.

Ooookay.

And on the last point indeed the development cannot ceaseas long as that organism is alive since the niche will always undergo changes. But here is catch 22: For an organism to make the needed changes it need a FLUX: Pressure to make changes by the environment that organism inhabits, on the other hand, for an organism to be ably to successfully develop in a niche, the niche has to be stable so that any changes to the organism are advantageous to it, else the energy used will be less then that needed for survival so it will go extinct.

Evolutionary change (or extinction) is inevitable, yes. But it's not inherently directed towards "higher" forms.

Stop The Hypocrisy Faith is a wonderful things, it is faith that allows folk to go to work, it is faith that makes them think they will come home and see their family, yes faith is wonderful, but a faith in Einstein as a " god " needs to be medicated :-)

@Eagle Averro: Which part of "Until we start seeing even one independent laboratory confirm OPERA's findings ..." are we having trouble with today? As Saint Ronnie famously said, "Trust but verify".

I think at some point GTR will be proven to have limitations, just like Newtonian physics does, and I am pretty sure that Einstein believed that as well (that is the nature of science, continued exploration and learning). All it is going to do is create limits in where we use GTR and where we use a new theory.

We still teach Newtonian physics, (classical physics is Newtonian), even after it has been proven to not be complete.

" Which part of "Until we start seeing even one independent laboratory confirm OPERA's findings ..." are we having trouble with today? As Saint Ronnie famously said, "Trust but verify". "

Ok Which part of " theory " do you not comprehend, Einstein postulated a THEORY, it is not accepted totally YET, a Theory is to be questioned, but it seems to me that you have accepted all that Einstein says because you have Idolized the MAN, is that right?

Now if you want to talk about Science FACTS, are YOU aware of many tests that have " Slowed and STOPPED light " and do YOU know the difference between Speed and Velocity?

1)

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

The light dims as it slows down, so you think that it's being turned out. Then Hau shoots a yellow-orange laser beam into the cloud of atoms, and the light emerges at full speed and intensity.

2) http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/73.cfm NASA-funded research at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., that literally stops light in its tracks, may someday lead to breakneck-speed computers that shelter enormous amounts of data from hackers. .... When they shot a light pulse into the cloud, it bogged down, slowed dramatically, eventually stopped, and turned off

eagle,

the problem is that there is hostility on both sides, one on the concept of proving einstein wrong, which is what a lot of people feel is the justification rather than the concept of scientific discovery and advancement. Just look at the title of the article/seed, it starts with 'Einstein wrong again!' which is incorrect from the start because GTR has yet to be proven wrong ever at this point. There are experiments that indicate that it may not explain everything, but there is NO indication that it is wrong.

Now if people would start to talk like adults in matters, then we wouldn't be going through this with the hostility that we seem to be here, but on the other side, the same thing happened about a hundred years ago when Einstein first came out with the theory of relativity, but unlike then, we don't seem to have a new theory, just data points.

Jonathan-1917156 ok " One can not prove a NEGATIVE ", so then a Theory is to be proved Right, no one needs to prove it wrong.

So when a Theory does not meet the needs to be " right " then the Scientific method is that it remains a Theory till it is.

SO once again we are back to " Faith " and My initial article here it is once again http://eagleaverro.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/19/6678872-what-is-evolution-and-what-defines-a-religion?threadId=3138692&commentId=55825370#c55825370

The premise made there is fitting for all " Science Dogma " and hence all " religions " are whatever one CLINGS to that has NOT been fully verified and hence needs an element of Faith.

Eagle,

I doubt very much that anyone will EVER prove Relativity. Why? because you can test 10 billion hypothesis, and everyone of them will fit within the theory of relativity, but only one failure will disprove it. More than likely, what will happen, because so much 'testing' has been done on relativity, is that it will be proven to have limitations, just like newtonian physics, which is still taught, is considered to be right, when you factor in its limitations, where Relativity takes over.

It is the same thing with evolution,

The problem with religious doctrine is that it is untestable, relativity is testable, and that is what differentiates religious faith and science.

Jonathan-1917156 So you say, i say different about the Bible and I am sure you have read a number of comments I have made on it, but like anything " written by Man " and as of this Moment i do not know of any book written by any other creature but Man. I believe a university has supplied Primates with Tablets,( Computers ) so lets wait and see lol but I am More then comfortable in proving the Genesis Chapter 1 is Scientific.

So called contradictions are what a true Scientist will understand a " locality based perceptions " and not lies or misinformation.

A Veriance in a time line that does not change the probabilities and final outcome is just procedural.

@Eagle Averro: You obviously want somebody to argue with. I'm not that person. Have a nice evening.

Thank You for the scientific response to t eh articles posted, yes may you have a great day also.

Jonathan-1917156 ok " One can not prove a NEGATIVE ", so then a Theory is to be proved Right, no one needs to prove it wrong.

One can't prove that something doesn't exist because it's impossible for something that doesn't exist to leave behind evidence. As an example, you can't prove God doesn't exist. One can, through evidence and experimentation, prove that there are conditions under which a theory fails.

The premise made there is fitting for all " Science Dogma " and hence all " religions " are whatever one CLINGS to that has NOT been fully verified and hence needs an element of Faith.

Trying to equate the kind of faith required to accept a scientific theory and religious faith is absurd. It also show, once again, that you really don't understand what science is.

You accept a theory knowing that it is based on the best scientific evidence available at the time. You know that the theory is subject to change as new evidence and insight emerges and you are welcome to test the theory yourself.

Religious dogma is not based on any evidence at all. Christians take it on faith that the contents of a book, whose origins can't be proved, are the literal truth. Although people have found evidence that some of the people, places and events actually occurred (though often not exactly in the way that the Bible describes), no one has yet found a way to prove the spiritual aspects of the book. In some sects and periods in history, such testing results in the follower being ostracized, ejected from the sect, imprisoned or even killed.

He who Speaks for ALL speaks for NONE.

While I was inclined to giving you the benefit of the doubt, I figured any attempt to debates you on your opinions would be a waste of time.

No.

What seems to be true is that you posted a science article with the sole intent to discuss religion.

science, milky-way-galaxy, special-relativity, earth-spins

those were your tags. Normally, this would justify a report to the moderators. You're just so new to NV, though,.........

Does any one get the feeling that Sky has an " Axe to grind "? and is making threats to Viners?

Any electron neutrino can routinely exceed the local speed of light, and it's affect, and the affect it has on other electrons it hits and propels faster than the local speed of light, creates the cerenkov effect, the characteristic blue glow in a reactor. I'm wondering what experimental regimen was followed to assure, 1) that the electrons in the experiment were really travelling in a vacuum that would not result in a slower local speed, and 2) that the neutrinos used in the experiment really exceeded the absolute speed of light.

I'm sure the math, and the regimen taken to insure experimental purity, are mind-boggling to the layman, but until the experiment is replicated in another facility, with different local factors, I think this is still a work in progress.

Note to Jonathan, if you're still around. I don't think the LHC was the instrument used for this experiment. The article seems to have steered one away from that conclusion.

Did you read the articles about Light Speed and how it is not a constant

This seems to be new to you. Congratulations.

Most people familiar with high school science already know that C is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Try checking Wikipedia. It's the very first sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Detracking this article due to anti-science religious trolls. DNFTT

MarkD-555 " Detracking this article due to anti-science religious trolls. DNFTT " calling Viners trolls only shows your limitation obviously you did not read the articles, but i will assist you as far as possible, do you consider space as a " vacuum " if yes see " Gravity lensing "

Do you know how light in a Vacuum tube is redirected using magnetism? if not study on it.

Science can not make advances when " close minds " make definitive statements about Fundamental we know near ZERO about!!! See Photonics.

Eagle - Mr. G says the scientific method removes doubt in order to accurately explain a phenomenon. A belief has no value in this context until there is data to support it.

I'm waiting for repeatable experiments and peer reviewed data to support the claim.

Speed of Light is ANY speed light travels " c" is a constant same as a Mile or a Kilometer!!!

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

The light dims as it slows down, so you think that it's being turned out. Then Hau shoots a yellow-orange laser beam into the cloud of atoms, and the light emerges at full speed and intensity.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/73.cfm NASA-funded research at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., that literally stops light in its tracks, may someday lead to breakneck-speed computers that shelter enormous amounts of data from hackers. .... When they shot a light pulse into the cloud, it bogged down, slowed dramatically, eventually stopped, and turned off

Fine, "c", but everyone knows what we're talking about. Even the article uses the layman's term speed of light. It isn't always necessary to add the "in a vacuum" bit, now is it?

At any rate my question was answered before I even posted it. Somehow I missed Physicist Retired's #1.14 post about the special relativity solution.

And yeah, the light slowing experiments are cool. The last one I was following used water, been a while now.

Eagle, I'll just assume you meant to post that elsewhere since it wasn't even addressing the question and way off subject. But thanks for the old links regarding light anyway.

I thought I'd read somewhere that the discrepancy had been resolved; that it was a relativity problem and not a speed of light problem. Thus, it actually confirmed Einstein, yet again.

I can't remember where I read that. Did anyone else come across it?

Last I read the 58-60 nano second "faster than light result" was due to not accounting for the time dilation of the satellites tracking the experiment. The time dilation due to the speed differential vs the ground was calculated to be about 64 ns.

The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/12/28/new-evidence-casts-doubt-on-faster-than-light-neutrinos/

But here is the most useful link I have found, detailing the entire timeline of the results and problems with links to many stories on it.

And pro tip to you anti-science people. Einstein could very well be "wrong" in that one particle goes FTL. Big deal. All his formulas will still be used. He still has major results in applied technology that we use daily. We wouldn't have satellites, GPS systems, or nuclear power if he wasn't "right".

The Bible is wrong all the time, and it's chalked up to "Poetic license" because it can't afford to ever be acknowledged as wrong to some.

And now back to your regularly scheduled anti-science religious ranting.

---

At any rate my question was answered before I even posted it. Somehow I missed Physicist Retired's #1.14 post about the special relativity solution.

Oops, I missed it too. Had Biotronics on ignore.

Yes it IS, but even adding that does not make it Right, let me ask you thism do You think Space is a " vacuum"?

let me ask you thism do You think Space is a " vacuum"?

Is this a Jr. High science test? Or are you just making a lame attempt to prove someone wrong on technicalities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_vacuum#Outer_space

Thanks for the response, Mark.

Eagle, no I don't think space is a perfect vacuum, but that's how c is defined is it not? The propagation rate of electromagnetic radiation in a theoretical "vacuum"? But, I suppose it's all relative...

edit- 3 minutes late, thanks for the response again, Mark. ;-)

dignitatem societatis Are You MarkD-555 also? if not, seems Mark has a personality disorder!

right it s " relative " because a formula cannot work with a constant variable. so then is is an assumption to make a formula work Rather then a scientific fact, that so many mistake it for.

dignitatem societatis Are You MarkD-555 also?

Nope.

right it s " relative " because a formula cannot work with a constant variable. so then is is an assumption to make a formula work Rather then a scientific fact, that so many mistake it for.

Actually, I was being rhetorical there. Are you saying you think c is bunk?

do You think Space is a " vacuum"?

Space is as close to a perfect vacuum as you can find. On average, the density of the universe is two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. Of course that is not evenly distributed, so local to accumulations it will be higher, and in intra-galactic areas, lower.

EA is presuming that immortality from general cell death is the key.

Of course, travelling a few hundred-thousand years or to another galaxy, for example, would still require feeding the cells. That means food and water, in copious amounts.

Wouldn't a month of food weigh about as much as the person. So a small trip of maybe 150,000 years would take about as many tonnes of food. With life-support, that would require a great deal more energy/fuel unless you use some suspended animation (which would eliminate the need to improve telomeric snippage).

Plus, it would destroy all world economies.

Bio, argument from ignorance?

Actually, the problem is that the genetic code doesn't carry a message.

The genetic code HAS evolved. It has not withstood the test of time. Look at the UUU and UUC coding for Phe, and UUA and UUG coding for Leu. But Met only being coded by AUG, and STOPs being coded by UUA, UAG, and UGA.

It is clearly evolved, since mitochondria use them to code for different items.

Yes, it does use 2 or 2.5 actually.

If some are coded by basically the first two codes, where ANYthing as the third code is ignored, then YES, it's that not all the codes use 3 codes.

Third letter wobble fails on Met which only has AUG.

Third letter is ignored on Leu and Val. C+U+anything codes for Leu. G+U+anything yields Val.

And Ser is coded by U+C+anything -- oh, also by A+G+U and A+G+C.

Each codon needs two base-pairs (at least) and the third might be ignored (like Leu and Val and Arg and Gly and Ser (sometimes)).

Yeah, that would be called half-coding by everyone else.

Research shows that if other codon (non-triplet) sizes are used, they will almost definitely evolve to a low of 3 base-pair codes.

See www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005708

A mathematical model for Codon Size Reduction as the Origin of the Triplet Genetic Code.

Sorry, but representing 20ish items in an array that holds 64 items, with the way it clearly does does strongly appear to be UN-intelligently designed. It's not even just random, but more -- the result of evolution, it would seem.

Biotronics lol only Two are Used and the Third Ignored :-) it is a bit like writing a check with $1200998 and what YOU meant was $12998 because the ZEROS are to be Ignored, lol what Ignorance!!

Bio, so, about half the coded-for function (not just amino-acids, but stops too) have multiple values, right? Some have one. So that would mean that YES it is a variable number, ie., 2.5 bits effectively. The third bit is, in not merely 8 amino-acids, but more importantly, in 32 of the 64 codon sequences, entirely ignored (half). And further, it's half-ignored for another 24 codon sequences.

So it's 2.5 bits (about) for about 56 out of the 64. MOST of the codes have one bit entirely ignored or half a bit ignored.

Why have even two codon sequences code for the same amino acid? Why have four? Why NOT have the same number for each? Some have only one valid coding sequence like Met or Trp. Even in those groups we have Met sharing a THREE-version copy of Ile, but Trp shars the UG group with Cys and a stop codon! So there's not even symmetry. And the Stop codons are sprinkled throughout.

Sorry, that's clearly not design, that's evolutionary co-opting.

I am not saying that you can DELETE the third one, but that it's not significant, can be entirely ignored.

Of course, we DO have further evidence of changes over time, because not all codons are standard across all species.

CUG codes for leucine, right... except when it codes for Serine. So, it's not really standard is it.

See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10188281

( Non-universal usage of the leucine CUG codon and the molecular phylogeny of the genus Candida )

or lots of examples of differences :

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

( The Genetic Codes ) -- same domain as your example.

So, there is no actual evidence of intelligent design in the "test of time" for DNA when we CAN actually see changes over time to the actual CODES of the code.

Bio, did you refute ANY of the points in my posting?

None, absolutely NONE were remotely inaccurate.

Your claim was that the code itself wasn't evolving.

Your NG Genetic Code comes to the same conclusion as does the paper that I cited :

www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005708

A mathematical model for Codon Size Reduction as the Origin of the Triplet Genetic Code.

And even the codes themselves have changed, over time, which amino-acid they actually code for.

Come on, be specific, which assertion of mine was incorrect.

I've already shown where your intelligent design assertions were bogus, and even shown your ID posting to be an argument from ignorance, and a speciously contrived one at that.

Bio, the candida and all those others were human assisted evolution?

Wow, seriously, Paley's watchmaker canard again?

Look at ice -- it's self assembling. Look at planetary systems or stars, they also self-assemble.

Rushmore conveys an intentional meaning OVER and above the simple information that it contains. Ice doesn't. DNA doesn't. DNA merely carries the natural chemical processes that helped form it... like a scab, or like adding an acid to a base.

Your assertion was false -- you said that DNA, as a code, was not evolving. The conclusion of the CUG codon study I cited was that " Our result suggests that non-universal decoding is not a rare event, and that it is widely distributed in the genus Candida."

So, it is and has changed in bacteria, and in mitochondria (likely also evolved from bacteria) and DNA acts precisely as if it had evolved, EVEN down to the codon size of triplets.

Everything you've posted, in fact, asserts the same.

WOW!!! Someone Claims to know Protoplanet formation.. WOW, this one is indeed destined for a Nobel!!! lol

Oh, you are now claiming that the ONLY thing that hasn't changed was the number of items in the codons? You now accede that the DNA codons themselves have evolved and want to argue the codon SIZE? Ok, I will play with your moving goal-posts.

Did you read the study that you cited on codon size, OR the one that I'd cited? They both assert that evolution would guarantee a triplet size, regardless of original codon-size (be it 5 base-pairs or 4 or whatever).

Ok, How about the AGGY or CCCCU codons?

I think that AGGY doesn't qualify as a triplet -- as it is FOUR base-pairs. It's very close to three, but adding one to three yields four. And since four does not equal three, then it destroys your proposition.

Anyone with competent training in computational bioinformatics or molecular biology should remember that.

A NOBLE prize? Ok, sorry, you're not any sort of scientist, as is clear. It is Nobel. Noble is a word, a descriptor of behaviour or measure of comparative virtue. While some names are also words, Nobel is rather a cultural icon.

Bio, That is in a real life example -- it's in Perkinsus marinus... and AGGY codes for glycine. CCCCU codes for proline.

See www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019933

Or see nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/18/6186.full

Bio, but the codon is still preserved.

Oh, and are you saying that the next part of the codon is not significant? Hmm.. kind of like the current one-way degenerate codes I'd mentioned above?

You can't have it both ways.

You said that DNA never evolved.

Then I showed that it did, and that codons now do not code for the same things they always had.

Then you said that it was always three codons.

And I showed you non-triplets which are conserved, showing they WERE longer in the past.

Those are examples of codons with more than 3 base-pairs that you asked for.

Bio, here's the snippets from the papers :

"Masuda et al. [20] suggest two feasible mechanisms for the translational frameshifts in Perkinsus: a ribosomal frameshift in which stalled ribosomes skip the first bases of these codons (similar to the model hypothesized by Beckenbach et al. [42]), or specialized tRNAs recognizing non-triplet codons AGGY and CCCCU to code for glycine and proline, respectively. In this study, we add cox1 for P. chesapeaki and cob sequences for P. marinus and P. chesapeaki, which share the unusual AGGY codon with cox1 and use other unusual codons (UAGGC and UCGGU) to encode glycine as well. Specialized tRNAs in the Perkinsus mitochondrial system recognizing non-triplet AGGY and CCCCU codons, and likely UMGGY as well, may be more likely than the ribosomal frameshifting scenario, as naturally occurring tRNA mutants suppress +1 frameshifts via an extended anticodon loop in Escherichia coli (e.g. [43]), and quadruplet codons are used in protein mutagenesis"

Sorry, but those are clear references to non-triplet codons.

And there is also www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10764591 ( Quadruplet codons: implications for code expansion and the specification of translation step size )

So, it seems that it's not merely my slant on this.

And another study shows "The length of codons in the genetic code is also optimal, as three is the minimal nucleotide combination that can encode the twenty standard amino acids. The apparent impossibility of transitions between codon sizes in a discontinuous manner during evolution has resulted in an unbending view that the genetic code was always triplet. Yet, recent experimental evidence on quadruplet decoding, as well as the discovery of organisms with ambiguous and dual decoding, suggest that the possibility of the evolution of triplet decoding from living systems with non-triplet decoding merits reconsideration and further exploration. "

In fact, non-triplet codons are the basis of this entire paper :

( Codon Size Reduction as the Origin of the Triplet Genetic Code ) at www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005708

I have given codons which are not three base-pairs, and they were actually called codons by the actual writers of multiple papers (not just me).

And finally, there are papers showing evolutionary evidence of the genome from non-triplet DNA.

Masuda et al. [20] suggest ...the model hypothesized by Beckenbach et al. [42]), ..may be more likely than the ribosomal frameshifting ... may be more likely than the ribosomal frameshifting

LOL at " Sorry, but those are clear references to non-triplet codons. " lol Seems reading and comprehension is not, a NOBLE training for someone that wants a NOBEL prise, Most Ignoble, indeed.

Seems reading and comprehension is not,

The topic of the quoted piece is the mechanism involved, not the likelihood of the codons themselves.