Re: resolution of measuring equipment
ok you have point A and point B
they are 10 units apart
light moves at say 5 units per second so to get from A to B it would take 2 light units
to measure the light at point A and point B we have a measureing device of some sorts
this measure device takes 1 light unit of time to measure any sample
Given this premise you can see that the speed of measurement can impact the results and in this area .000000001% margin of error is still alot. As such to truely measure things they use large distances to in essence slow things down enough to make that margin of error smaller.
This is why they tested neutreno's over a distance of nearly the entire planet and still made a error.
Given this - I find anything done in a lab which is small in terms of how far light can bounce around in it or anything else to be flawed before it even starts.
Thing I found in life in general that to get a accurate sample you realy want to sample 4x the speed of the data involved (video being a poor but acurate example of this when you want say you film something at 500x500 and also film it at 2000x2000 and reduce it down to 500x500, even with the same lenses etc you will get a better picture from the downsampled 2kx2k film at 500x500 than shooting raw at 500x500). So to mearure the speed of light accurately you would need to be able to measure it at 4 times the speed of light. This is deemed impossible and rightly so, this is why you cheat by in essence slowing down the data and in this case by having a larger distance is how you do it, though you never completely eliminate that margin of error you simply end up shifting that decimal point further and in essence reduce the margin of error.
As it stands it's like measureing a 10 pixel image with a 2 pixel camera and declaring you see 12 pixels.
If I still fail to explain myself then I feel assured that the universe is just as bad at explaining itself as well and in that I have good company.