Well, on the subject of credentials. I'm a college student pursuing a degree in Physics, focusing in Quantum Optics.The main problem I have with your "cone theory", (which is a viable option for FTL travel), is that it doesn't relate to the recent neutrino experiment.In order for your idea to make sense, the particles would vanish from one place, and then appear suddenly in another. Due to the fact that it made the journey through a higher spatial dimension.But the neutrinos took the straight line path through the earth. No random jumps occurred. Not to mention the incredible amount of energy that would be required to jump an object to a higher spatial dimension, something the neutrinos weren't even close to producing.Like i said, i could be wrong, but i also said that the speed of light has been slowing down, and also, you act as if you know for a fact that the neutrino behaved exactly like that, 2 things:1: can you link me the articles involved? i will study it in depth myself.2: if it DID go faster than light, how can you observe it to know that it DID go faster than light? light being the fastest possible measurement, how do you record a car going at 70 miles an hour past you with a camera that takes one frame of recording every five minutes?just point in case and hold neither your argument nor your facts against youPost Script: if gravity can escape our dimension freely as M theory would dictate, then we could easily develop a gravity generator (possibly monopole based) that could suck us into a higher dimension by useage of sailing on gravityI believe most of the articles I read, I can't link to.But most major news outlets wrote on the subject.Anyways, my answer to your your questions:We don't know for certain how the neutrinos behaved. But because they didn't do anything else out of the ordinary, other than arriving 30-60 nanoseconds to soon, assuming they traveled the intended straight line, while staying in this dimension, makes the most sense.The way they measured the speed is a little different from your camera analogy. If that were the case, there would be no way to measure high speed particles.Think of it more like shooting a rocket into a wall.The launch is an easily measurable event. When you pushed the red button is when the launch started.Similarly, the crash is an easily measurable event. Put enough sensors in the wall to tell us when it was destroyed.So, by measuring indirectly, you can obtain very accurate results.Hope that made sense, and also keep in mind that most of this is still hypothetical. The scientists who ran the experiment still don't have a clear idea of what they did. Ah, i see, then here is an obvious answer which they may have thought of, but i will state anyway...The earth is a moving object, it is not only moving around its axis, moving around its sun, and its sun moving around the galaxy, but our galaxy itself is indeed moving in a direction we have yet to understand at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind...it is entirely feasible the neutrinos got there sooner because the earth moved the target closer. Easy is as easy does....The best way to prove this for sure would be to, of course, repeat it at different hours of the day, and from both ends of the earth, as to provide a baseline average of what direction the earth is moving so that you would know whether it got there because the target got moved, or because of FTL transmissionBut there is also the simple explanation that there is something in the core of our earth that is more slippery to neutrinos and so it just had less problems getting here, or some such analogy