Science: Don't Worry, Physics Is Safe
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
ph0b0s123 said:
Torrasque said:
For the umpteenth time, they did not release their results as a discovery. They released it as something they were pretty sure was an error. They made their results available so that other scientists could check it and find the error that they were unable to. They said it would be really neat if it wasn't an error, but that it was very likely to be an error and needed to be thoroughly reviewed by the physics community before any revisions to current theory were made.jurnag12 said:
They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Suppose that in a math class I stumble upon some mathematical equation that, solved in a certain way, appears to make 1 equal to 2. Suppose I ask the rest of the class to help me figure out what I did wrong. If what just happened with this neutrino thing were repeated in that class, it would mean the Journalism Club members in that class would have started running through the halls proclaiming that I have proved 1 equals 2, the entire school hears about it, and gets all excited. Five minutes later someone points out that I dropped a negative sign during one of my calculations, and the equation goes back to being perfectly mundane. The students in the school accuse me of getting everyone excited and completely ignores the Journalism Club's hyping of my erroneous result and their downplaying of what I really said, which was, again, a request for someone to help me figure out what I did wrong.
If it sounds like a completely ridiculous and implausible situation, that's because it is. Yet, it happened pretty much that way with the neutrino speed measurement. That's how insane people like you are. You turn real life into the kind of trashy sitcom written by people who don't know any other way of creating humor except by making the characters hold the idiot ball and never let go.
People like you are why the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" exists.
Well bugger me, and I was just about to spool up the FTL drives, science... it ruins everything.
Does seem odd they didn't compensate for this earlier, then again standing on "firm" ground you rarely think of howmany miles an hour you are actually charging through space.
Does seem odd they didn't compensate for this earlier, then again standing on "firm" ground you rarely think of howmany miles an hour you are actually charging through space.
Let me ask...am I right in thinking, basically, they didn't compensate for the different time zones between Switzerland and Italy or am I missing something?
Article 'refutes' article. Another article with 'discovery' refutes the 'refuted' article. Peer review kicks in. Rigorous testing.
I enjoy these Escapist/pop-site articles because they provide news about new stories that I may not have heard of. In terms of wording (ie: 'proving'), however, it's always good to take things with a massive grain of salt. That's why I love science though! Things are always open to attack. Nothing is dogma [optimally anyway
]
I enjoy these Escapist/pop-site articles because they provide news about new stories that I may not have heard of. In terms of wording (ie: 'proving'), however, it's always good to take things with a massive grain of salt. That's why I love science though! Things are always open to attack. Nothing is dogma [optimally anyway
]
noVeldt Falsetto said:
they just did not take into account the satellite movement while timing
as it was rotating the same direction as the partial was moving it recorded a faster time.
Result of disproof is ambiguous, given what I've seen thus far.
Science (collectively) just doesn't blindly accept changes to proven models and theorems unless it can be consistently repeated.
Science (collectively) just doesn't blindly accept changes to proven models and theorems unless it can be consistently repeated.
Because it's completely impossible that someone managed to miss the fact that they published strange errors instead of actual discoveries, as one might safely assume from a scientific institute.McMullen said:
And you know what makes me not want to live on this planet anymore? People who, at the smallest sight of someone making a genuine mistake due to misinformation, jump to insult those people into the ground and declare them insane idiots unfit for the human race.
Which reminds of the Westboro Baptist Church, come to think of it.
And the phrase "I don't want to live on this planet anymore." exists because Dan Vebber needed dialogue to show disgust at truly stupid people, not to create a snappy punchline internet trolls can throw at people they don't agree with or hate for no apparent reason.
I told that it was a systematic error and, surprise, oh surprise, it was!
Nothing that has mass can go faster than light, simply because photons are massless. Neutrinos have mass, therefore they will never and I mean NEVER travel faster than light.
Some scientists...
Dean Yeager:
Nothing that has mass can go faster than light, simply because photons are massless. Neutrinos have mass, therefore they will never and I mean NEVER travel faster than light.
Some scientists...
Dean Yeager:
Dean Yeager said:
Not sure why I have got dragged in here. The point of my post was that either the explanation now being offered is wrong, or the people carrying out the original experiment made a really dumb mistake. Not sure what was is so controversial about that idea.McMullen said:
Making an error in the calculations is one thing and can happen to anyone, but if the explanation is right, it would indicate a lack of understanding of basic physical principles by the experiment designers. This is what makes me doubt the now offered explanation.
And I can also make that statement as I have a degree in the subject being discussed.
The feeling is mutual.McMullen said:
People assume a lot of things about science that cause all sorts of trouble. This is the latest in a long line of facepalm-worthy tales of people taking anything any scientist says, even when they say it in doubt, and parading it around as "Science says X!". One would think that eventually the press and their readers would get tired of making fools of themselves, but they don't because rather than consider the part they played in their own deception, they simply accuse the scientists of being indecisive or self-contradictory or incompetent. Go back and read the article announcing the faster-than-light neutrino. If you don't let yourself get carried away by your own excitement, you'll see what was actually said.jurnag12 said:
I'd prefer that you credit me with insults I make, and not the insults I don't make. I called you insane and said, in effect, that you blur the line between reality and badly written comedy. The former may be just a little harsh, but the latter is perfectly consistent with your post. I don't know why you said I insulted you into the ground or called you unfit for the human race. I think that's your own baggage there. It certainly didn't come from me.jurnag12 said:
And you didn't make a mistake due to misinformation. The article contained the scientist's caveat that it was very likely an error. You just ignored that and fixated on the most fantastical possible interpretation of the results, which is something that absolutely confuses me. I am simply amazed that so many people would do that.
Perhaps to Godwin's Law we should add the Jurnag Corollary: If you need an evil organization to compare someone on the internet to but the Nazis are too out of style, the Westboro Baptist Church may be used instead.jurnag12 said:
Seriously, the WBC? I, in calling you out on your poor reading comprehension, remind you of the WBC? If that's all it takes, life is going to be very hard for you.
Then I used it more or less as was originally intended, as I used it to communicate my disgust with people's truly stupid actions, not out of hate or a desire to simply make people mad on the internet.jurnag12 said:
A single paper doesn't prove the theory wrong, as it its self is a theory - a paper written by one man and still not yet proven correct by peers or likewise. Hence the overall question still stands.
