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
I am off to bake the cookies….intentionally and purposefully…they have a balanced not too heavy valance and are not too spicy so i’m gonna call them ‘neutrinos’….and i hope the only thing they steal are a few hunger pangs….:)
While your Manichean Paranoia in regards to Einstein’s intelligence is good for a chuckle, the fact is that Einstein was a genius scientist who’s theories advanced the cause of science in his time–a time which has long since passed. And despite this long time passing, much of what he did is still with us and will be for a long time. He will be proven wrong on many things (especially at the random quantum level) and he will be proven right on some things (recent gravitational studies using satellites).
Tony,
Now comes the attack as a defense. Your career in the military is showing.
How long was it, Mine was only 2 years, although as first in my class at Monmouth, I could have made a career of it with a regular commission.
Your achievements are naught if you don’t notice the “rank” you are showing, or should better say emitting. Get it, sirrrrrr? (A rank smell, the stench of anger, if I must be explcit.)
Ad hominem attacks of the type: “suspect lack of intelligence” amounts to admission of defeat or lack of a logical defence
My not knowing anything about your achievements, your promoting your value as a person, pointing with whatever justified pride there might be, your using your achievements as defense to “rigid thinking compulsively based on science” is essentially non-sequitur, ie irrelevant completely.
They were not the things I was criticising. Keep your achievements and wear them with pride. It was your mind and attitude revering science as holy and immutable faith which disturbed me. Hope this answers your request for more explicit arguments.
I did not pull rank or use my aged wisdom as a tool to attack.
Just wondered if you were aware of the impression you gave me?
Obviously not judging from your “answer”..
My judgement, wrong in this case, based on appearances rather than fact, was related to the fact that new doctorates usually are sensitive for some time as to their merits and standing. Something I know from my own errors.
Shall we go back to discussing Galileo and his contribution to science and how it relates to our faith in science and the stability and uniformifty of the universe. The last is under serious discussion among cosmologist right now.
Would the “truths” of religion admitted such questioning.
@Idealist: I am not a rigid thinker at all; in fact my academic publications are proof I am a pretty inventive thinker; I have overturned dogma more than once with excellent results.
I am a scientific thinker, there is a polar difference. Rigid thinkers subscribe to dogma and are incapable of considering a reality in which their dogma is untrue, thus they are incapable of overthrowing dogma.
Scientific thinkers are perfectly willing to consider reasons they may be wrong, and to explore the consequences of eliminating a dogmatic rule. They only appear rigid when the arguments presented against their view are arguments they have already considered and found flawed or wanting, sometimes many times over.
I am not a rigid thinker, but I am a rigid adherent to the rules of debate, I will not accept an emotionally driven argument or false assertion. Provide some logic or reason or evidence or a compelling hypothetical. My mind can be changed, and often has been changed, it just takes the right kind of ammunition.
there is purpose in action and purpose in intent AND purpose in unconscious being.
I think we are not talking about the same thing, except that 2 imply fore-thought…..which is not necesarily supported by the pure state of being…ie: the Sun. Again, we are not Gods and can only speculate on those extremes.
But purpose in inanimate objects can serve the intention of conscious ones. So again,
‘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!
Tony C.1, February 24, 2012 at 1:14 pm
@Woosty: Purpose cannot be ascribed by predictability; the Sun warms the planet predictably, but without purpose.
——————————–
disagreed.
The sun may not wake up and say “I have to go warm that planet” but all the creatures on the planet know that without the predictable manner of warmth from the sun (the ‘purpose’ that they acknowledge)…they would cease to exist. This is also why we as humans can’t really separate the Scientific principle from the sublime gnosis…which later becomes ‘reason’.
But it seems to me that your argument points to another factor…that of consciousness..ie: can the sun see it’s purpose as those who depend on its predicatability see it?
Or does it simply have other fish to fry???? 🙂
Woosty,
Hypatia was around 2nd century CE and killed by Christian monk who then burned the library in Alexndria. The greek was about 400 BCE. Will check it out, got a link I think.
The earth was measured by using the distance from the equator where the sun reached the bottom of a deep well at summer solstice, to where he was in Egypt where the shadow of a stick of a known height could be measure.d The rest is geometry which I can’t either. Ho Ho Ho.
Woosty is a cat,
You have converted me from scientific bigot ot myticism.
I’m gonna ask Tony to read you. But he seems rigid. But who said flexibility is good for a physicist.
Loved this:
“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. ”
And thus there is space for us, with or without our gods.
@Woosty: Purpose cannot be ascribed by predictability; the Sun warms the planet predictably, but without purpose.
Purpose is intricately tied up with predictability, however, because purpose requires an intent to change the future from its expected state should no overt action be taken. That in turn demands an ability to predict both the expected state for no action, and the states should action be taken.
Thus the purpose of an irrigation ditch is to bring water to where it would not be expected to be if no ditch were dug. The purpose of the irrigation is to grow grain that would otherwise most likely die, the purpose of the grain is to prevent starvation in the winter that would otherwise most likely occur. The purpose of a shovel is to make it easier to create the ditch. The purpose of searching the forest looking for a strong straight stick is to create the handle for the shovel, and indirectly, to prevent starvation in the winter.
Purpose is about influencing the future to produce an otherwise improbable (or impossible) result. That requires an ability to think about the future and the ability to chose one’s immediate actions, as far as I know, that requires some sort of predictive intelligence and (what we call) free will to act.
On the other hand, to argue against myself, in evolutionary science we often talk about the “purpose” of adaptations; e.g. sweat glands exist to prevent overheating of the body, eyelids are there to keep the eyes moisturized and protected.
I suppose that is a sense in which “purpose” can exist without any design or intelligence, but still in the sense of some action being taken to influence the future and prevent something from happening that would otherwise be likely to happen (e.g. heat stroke or blindness).
So in either sense, I do not think inanimate objects can have purpose.
Well not everyone has the stuff to be a scientist….
Deniers dont understand the scientific process. Seeing how your not you do. I understand now.
@Idealist: I am beginning to suspect a lack of intelligence on your part.
I am not young. I have been in the military, finished a career in consulting and retired to full time academic research at a university, where I have been for several years. I was on my own and worked my way through my last two years of high school and haven’t stopped working since. I have a grown daughter and a grandchild.
If you have a problem with something I have said, detail the problem and explain what you think is wrong with it, do not try to pull some bullshit rank on me.
A little more Einstein humor:
Gene H.,
“I don’t know about you, Elaine, but that sounds like one hell of an entertaining dinner party to me.”
I’d spend a month in preparation to host a dinner party for such illustrious individuals.
Bdaman,
That dumb Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) thought the planets had circular rather than elliptical orbits. What a hack!
I don’t know about you, Elaine, but that sounds like one hell of an entertaining dinner party to me.
Bdaman,
I guess folks like you don’t have much use for people like Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, the Curies and company.
Bdaman,
The climate change deniers don’t understand the scientific process…or choose not to. The deniers are human too. They have made many mistakes and done many unethical things. They believe/pretend to believe that the vast majority of scientists are hacks and liars. The deniers do not believe in the greater good. They believe in serving their corporate masters.
Scientist believe sky actually falling in a new study posted over at the Christian Science Monitor. The time frame is short, but if future observations show that clouds are truly getting lower, it could have an important effect on global climate change. Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0223/Sky-actually-falling-report-scientists In other words we know theres been no warming since 1997 according to new data released in mid January by the CRU so now we need to find a reason why its not getting hotter.
Bdaman….
I don’t think the ocean can be adequately painted with one large stroke of one large brush….more like a ray flap here can cause a tsunami there.. .
It’s about gettin it just right…. 🙂