First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
Dr. David Viner expert climate scientist believed that snowfall within a would become a very rare and exciting event and that children would not no what it was due to global warming. This created headlines titled “Snowfall a Thing of the Past” this was the headline at the website the Independant back in 2000. Here it is 12 years later and for three years in a row much of the world has seen record snowfall. Now scientist believe that global warming actually produces more snow. However now that much of the U.S. has had a mild winter and little to no snow they can once again confirm this is due to global warming.
No Ms. Elaine just trying to point out that scientist are human and can make mistakes. As we just saw with Peter Glieck they also commit crimes even though they claim to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard if there is such a thing, Either you are or your not. As evidence in the Piltdown man and many countless other examples scientist are not above the law of probability. They have been wrong in the past and will be in the future and at times will fake,forge and commit identity theft for what they believe will be for the greater good.
Elaine M.1, February 24, 2012 at 10:57 am
——————————————————-
a million 🙂 ‘s
s for the Greeks, I prefer the one who determined by calculation the diameter of the earth, the size of the moon, the distance to the moon, and to the Sun, although the error factor was percentuellt larger on the last parameter. Do you recall his name?
——————————————-
A student of Hypatia I believe….and she another victim of political jealousies and hatreds and un-understandings in the bash for matter….
idealist707 1, February 24, 2012 at 9:35 am
Dredd,
The bible is god’s truth, you believe that, dinn’t ya???? Or I’ll kill you.
Yes, says the senator.
====================================
I commented on the republican scientist’s site that I linked to up-thread.
He allowed my comment, even though I had a link to my site in the comment.
He evidently realizes that the only thing relevant (after seeing that there are no commercials on my site ever) is the theory of the relativity of the subject matter.
It is a memetically sound form of cognition IMO, inherent in the DNA of HTML.
Anyway, that senator you mention is either Beavis, Butthead, or Inhofe … I would guess.
no insult intended.
not sure if it’s BS bcause I’m not a schooled physicist. But I do think that all matter matters and all reason is potentially sublime.
I am not a purist. I live in a world where there is both reason based on understanding and also amidst the nuclear reactions that are observable and felt by those who don’t deliberately engage or invite the re-action.
I am kin to Shroedingers cat.
To me, a Universe is Philosophically impossible where only Science matters…and that makes it devoid of the sublime….and vice versa….and to me, alien.
Despite the dancing of the spheres, We are not God yet!
A little joke about Einstein and God told by Wislawa Szymborska, a Nobel Laureate in Literature:
Tony,
Is Woosty the cat BSing me with this, see also his recent posts.
Woosty said:,
“Electron-capture….which implies a tainted field [outside interference]…and electron decay…which negates any probability until the end unless the valence is restored….( essentially cancelling the reaction) and restoring predictability and stability ….
It is a mistake to think of the box as simple unless you are absolute in your knowledge of all the variables”
End Woosty.
Tony,
Yes, we all know the problem with a toneless writing and no body language nor face. But we revel in using that handicap here. And being lured or put on is part of the much appreciated fun here.
As for stating your scientist capacity; unfortunately you are still so young as to not realize the strictions of the garm, and tend to sound over-serious in my ears.
Until you gain better distance to yourself, you are at least credited with having come, and uttered if not conquered. And are welcome as all are.
Free of charge, no diplomas required—–just humanity is necessary.
As for old farts, Galileo was before his time. Try to find his thought and observations made on a moving boat next to a quayside. It’s Einstein’s Special Relativity in the 15th century. He in effect killed the last of Aristotle thinking.
As for the Greeks, I prefer the one who determined by calculation the diameter of the earth, the size of the moon, the distance to the moon, and to the Sun, although the error factor was percentuellt larger on the last parameter. Do you recall his name?
Woosty,
Yes, on re-reading I sensed that about the box not being simple.
But did not have the knowledge nor words to express that Schrodinger meant more than his simple box implied for the dummies.
Assuming you are not BSing me with:
“Electron-capture….which implies a tainted field [outside interference]…and electron decay…which negates any probability until the end unless the valence is restored….( essentially cancelling the reaction) and restoring predictability and stability ….”
then I feel rewarded on hearing the wizard utter a few incomprehensible formulae.
Or, the ultimate insult, where did you plagiarize that.
No, prefer contemplating the possiblity of an unfathomed deep in Woosty.
@Idealist707: I see people with some crazy-ass beliefs in here, I was responding to what you wrote. I freely admit I often mistake written jokes or sarcasm for sincerity; I depend heavily on tone of voice and body language to recognize humorous intent, and those are not conveyed in writing.
I am a research scientist and I do not believe in anything supernatural whatsoever. That leaves me utterly bored by most philosophy. That, plus the fact that I have no particular reverence for fame or antiquity, it makes no logical sense to embrace such emotional reactions. My mind is a meritocracy, I like ideas that are “robust” in the sense of holding up to close scrutiny and logic, and I do not generally have much interest in the person that produced it or when they did it. Although of course I do recognize that some people were far more prodigious producers of robust ideas than others.
I am not convinced Aristotle was one of them. While admitting I haven’t studied him thoroughly, it seemed to me early on that Aristotle produced too many laughably nonsensical ideas for me to believe he had the mental firepower to produce robust ones.
I think he was probably very appealing and a celebrity to those of his time and culture, and that is why his memory was preserved. Unlike, say, Euclid and Archimedes, who produced far more robust and scientifically testable ideas, and are remembered for that.
Electron-capture….which implies a tainted field [outside interference]…and electron decay…which negates any probability until the end unless the valence is restored….( essentially cancelling the reaction) and restoring predictability and stability ….
It is a mistake to think of the box as simple unless you are absolute in your knowledge of all the variables.
And the possibilities are more than the simple box one describes.
Feynman’s multi-path solution to the electron interfering with itself through the double slit is an example. Or???
“This is a succinct statement of the “uncertainty relation” between the position and the momentum (mass times velocity) of a subatomic particle, such as an electron. This relation has profound implications for such fundamental notions as causality and the determination of the future behavior of an atomic particle.”~ Schroedinger
—————————————————————
The equivalence is implied but the result is indeterminate….we must ask the Cat. We must take him ……..(!)………out of the box !!!!!!!
Woosty……is a philosopher, and a damn good one too.
Grats. What a joy to see. Parade on buddy. It’s Friday, and not only the Jews and the Muslims are feeling lively.
Just to bore you with a detail. A major project management technique battle in the sixties occurred just between the “event” side and the “activity” side.
PERT versus CPM. I was a CPMer. NASA used PERT, the NAVY managing projects often used CPM.
The goals were kind of existential too. Like do we produce nuclear submarines, move to Mars, launch nuke carriers, etc.
Woosty, (almost wrote Woosy, too early for that today)
NO, I can’t. Am still struggling with it. Something to do with gravity (attraction between masses) being so equivalent to acceleration that we can’t without reference to external objects tell the difference.
Like are we standing on the ground in a windowless rocket; or are we traveling through space at one g acceleraton. But don’t worry, such knowledge is not contagious, I wish it were as easy as that..
Can’t do more to demonstrate my own ignorance.
Thanks for giving me the rope to hang myself. I only used a short bit to avoid the long drop.
And, even if there were no ‘purpose’ to the original reaction…. in the ultimate construction and continued existance of the universe is that very definition and tangency of ‘purpose’….
Tony C.1, February 24, 2012 at 8:50 am
@idealist707: What astrophysicists are wondering why neutrinos exist?
I know an astrophysicist who does not wonder any such thing, because like me he ascribes no purpose to neutrinos, or supernovas, or particles in general. Things do not exist for a purpose, they have no job to get done. They just exist and react. Even our sun does not exist for a purpose, it is a simple nuclear reaction in progress.
————————————————–
‘Purpose’ can be ascribed by predictability ….often ‘after the fact’. But what is the predictable? Actual behavior or event end….It is choice that ultimately defines purpose. So the real question remains….does dark matter have consciousness???? Conscience? ….cause that’s hot!
Dredd,
The bible is god’s truth, you believe that, dinn’t ya???? Or I’ll kill you.
Yes, says the senator.
Even when some republican climate scientists are very careful in their work (unlike the CERN technicians in this one case), and offer to inform republican politicians, they are rebuffed when the science is not grass-roots approved by constituents.