If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
I found this story interesting. Although it needs further confirmation, scientist at the CERN believe there is a strong possibility that neutrinos move faster than the speed of light, which if correct, would force a rethink of Einstein's theory of relativity...
uh oh -- it only took almost 5 months but they found the "glitch" in one of their instuments and now kind of admit the neutrinos were NOT breaking the light speed limit --
so...nevermind....
Why there needs to be a 'score sheet' is beyond me. Scientists study things, they theorize and test. In the event they think they find something, they present it and open it up to the community to work on. Hardly as sinister as some seem to think this is.
That being said, you are probably right - there will not be as many stories about the explanation. Personally, I'm just happy to see anytime a story about math or science shows up, especially something this cool that might inspire someone.
I don't know of any score sheet I just see the way of advancing science taking a recent dangerous turn making credibility an oft-forgotten commodity in all of this...
- but throughout history all the way up thru when I was in college and grad school -- all the way 'til the past few years - the way scientific advances were made known was for the discoverer or author of the new info to present it to his peers, either personally or via official presentation (at the society's annual meetings) as Einstein did...
Then it got viewed and reviewed by all the world's experts and scientific peers, then if accepted and verified to everyone's satisfaction - then it was publicized as a NEW finding or discovery...sort of a "vetting" process so errors and ridiculous claims didn't get passed on as science.
It was the standard way of keeping things credible!!
-but now any scientist who wants instant recognition just calls a press conference (as did those who claimed they found the new arsenic-bacteria and these who believed their neutrinos were breaking the speed-limit) and instantly the scientist or the group are on front pages and literally are scientific superstars - getting interviews and writing books, etc...
...cashing in big time on their "science" that really isn't quite accurate or accepted just yet...
Then when their "discovery" gets disproven, debunked, or shown to be wrong or nothing new - it barely gets noted....almost as if the media wants to avoid admitting how badly they were duped with bad science and false claims.
This process is embarrassing for the media and it's bad for the scientific world.
I am certainly NOT the only person who views this as a "perilous" way of reporting new science...and casting real credibility doubts on a lot of scientific claims that go straight to the "press conference"...
Open science is a wonderful concept, but what happens when reporters start writing stories on data that has not been properly reviewed and vetted by the scientific establishment?
Don't forget table-top cold fusion and evidence of fossilized bacteria in Mars rocks that were instantly celebrated by lay media only to be thoroughly debunked later.
we currently have the same going on with the "feathers on dinosaurs" argument...
...up 'til now every animal found with feathers was a bird but if the experts can just nail even one feather on a creature they believe to be a dinosaur, then it will fit some preconceived plan to prove the birds evolved from lizards..
so look how hard they try - calling a fossilized bird a dinosaur
Edmonton, Canada (SPX) Sep 19, 2011 -
Secrets from the age of the dinosaurs are usually revealed by fossilized bones, but a University of Alberta research team has turned up a treasure trove of Cretaceous feathers trapped in tree resin.
..notice the story says NO dinosaurs or dinosaur fossils were found at any time connected in any way to whatever this feathery substance is - but that doesn't stop them from saying they've discovered dinosaur feathers..
This reminds me of those TV shows that have been out there searching for Bigfoot for YEARS - even interviewing gazillions of people who have been close enough to describe their smell and who have come within inches of hitting one with their car....(which is puzzling how thousands of near-hits but never resulting in an actual hit with a dead Bigfoot on the roadside) never finding anything more than a vague muddy footprint and a howl in the distance - yet concluding they have indisputable proof of Bigfoot!
The article clearly says they ran an experiment several times and got the same result, and then made their data available for scrunchy by the community to be verified or disproven - thats just how it works. I get a bunch of releases and verification/review requests in a busy week and I'm peanuts compared to these guys. The fact that it could redefine energy and it was from such a massive lab was the reason the release got picked up. The idea of annual conferences being the sole method of review is archaic and impractical these days. This isn't dangerous- dangerous is isolated research being done all over the place under the guise of proprietary.
It should also be noted that einstein and pretty much every scientist if his time published his work which was peer reviewed after submission prior to publishing, not presenting it at conferences.
Last edited by ChewaBrave; 02-24-2012, 02:51 PM.
Reason: Continued thought
The article clearly says they ran an experiment several times and got the same result, and then made their data available for scrunchy by the community to be verified or disproven - .....
sure - they say that, but that's not at all what they did -- the truth is they went public BEFORE they published ANYTHING!
And before any other experts could even scrutinize their work they went public and called press conferences and gave interviews...
This article confirms that they used an extremely "UNORTHODOX WAY of "DOING SCIENCE" - by "going straight for the headlines"....
Researchers who reported the surprising find of faster-than-light neutrinos in 2011 find two potential sources of error in their experiment.
well - just food for thought........
I have been to many of such exact presentations before an audience of peers - they happen all the time at annual meetings of experts in various fields...they just generally don't hold them in Peoria - they pick a little more exotic location.
If you ever saw the movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford - there's such an event depicted - I know it's fictional but it mirrors what goes on all the time in scientific fields...
he actually confronts the bad guy by walking up to the front of an auditorium where that guy's presenting his data on the fictional medicine "Provasic"
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
And if you check on Einstein - sure he published stuff but his real breaking ideas were "presented" publicly and presented initially in person in front of a scientific academy...
His wave theory presented June 22, 1916 to the general meeting of the Royal Prussian Academy of Scientists..and many of his other ideas were likewise presented to them.
In fact it was widely felt that unless and until you had the approval of the Academy - that nobody would want to publish your stuff.
Anyway - it took months or years to get ideas in print, published and distributed - but you could give a lecture to all the world's experts lots faster and more efficiently.
well - just food for thought........
I have been to many of such exact presentations before an audience of peers - they happen all the time at annual meetings of experts in various fields...they just generally don't hold them in Peoria - they pick a little more exotic location.
If you ever saw the movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford - there's such an event depicted - I know it's fictional but it mirrors what goes on all the time in scientific fields...
he actually confronts the bad guy by walking up to the front of an auditorium where that guy's presenting his data on the fictional medicine "Provasic"
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
I have too. I've never seen anything remotely similar to a confrontation out of The Fugitive happen. Unpublished data doesn't hold much value to me anyway. Far too often it is corporate sponsored as data/research. Unpublished, corporate sponsored "research" that makes your product seem superior. I'll take 20!
What is your point about seminar presentations?
I can do all things through pasta, which strengthens me.
the only debate point that seems to be lingering is that the credibility of scientists sure takes a hit if they go directly form doing their research...
It's only been quite recently and only in a few examples that scientists claiming to have LEGITIMATE new discoveries have spurned the age old method of revealing their findings via publications and presentations - and have instead gone right for the headlines and the leading news spots by hyper-exaggerating their findings straight to the eager press.
........they hold press conferences, even spilling titillating little "trailers" to the media (as NASA did regarding their upcoming alien announcement), then making a remarkable claim about some aspect of science even before the results are verified or reviewed by others (as the neutrino people did) in their fields...
only to have the results debunked, and make their science look shoddy, sloppy, or worse - pure-self-serving publicity seeking possibly for monetary or political gain...
Why are we afraid of outting scientists behaving badly?? (many of whom appear to be among those in the minority - that work for the government)
Im sorry,i guess I don't see how "we may have discovered something. We've done some tests, take a look and see if you can verify it" is hyper-exaggerating. And ive ben to many conferences with presentations but seldom do they resemble the fugitive. Additionally, the complexity associated with this level of research could not be debated at a conference anyway.
Mayhaps I an incorrect but your dislike of climate science, seems to cloud your notions of new science in general, and make you nearly spiteful towards people that present new possibilities. That is your prerogative, we'll just disagree.
Moving the subject back to cool science, anyone else following the story that just came out about building transistors at the atomic level?
Chewa - seriously - it is encumbent on a GOOD scientist to remain skeptical and buy into something only when the evidence is solid and well presented...
...why do you think even Einstein had to go back and present his ideas and research over and over to the Royal Academy...he expected them to be skeptics and demand good evidence.....
Being a skeptic is what KEEPS a mind from getting "clouded" by falsehoods...
If anyone's judgement is clouded it's someone who buys into some scientific idea because of what they read in the New York Times...
You are absolutely correct. I have no problem with people being skeptical, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the CERN did. They released their information so skeptics could be used to verify it. That is the scientific method. They talk about it NOT being verified. Every statement is predicated with, "if this is verified....." - At no point does anyone related with the CERN talk about certainties. This was the beginning of a process. If someone read the story and decided this was cold stone fact, then they are either illiterate, confused, or just incapable of grasping the concepts addressed. None of that falls on the shoulders of the scientists. It CLEARLY talks about the need to have the information/data looked at for further analysis.
I don't understand how presenting openly your recent findings so people can attempt to figure out what is going on, can be described as bad science. That is entirely anathema to bad science - more so, that is the idea of the scientific community.
One of the articles you posted above actually reads as such:
"All this story has shown to the wider public how science works," he said.
"Of course the people of Opera are not happy; they would have preferred that the neutrinos stayed [faster than light], but the fact that they came out and they put themselves to the scrutiny of the wider collaboration... I think makes a good case for science."
In the other article you posted, he and the scientist lamenting the announcement, both speak of CERN's desire to make the results and science crystal clear to the public when it was announced however, like many things, the media's reaction was overblown.
I hope it is a new breakthrough --
I do recall about a decade ago - an announcement that using lasers they were able to burn precisely aligned holes thru a layer of metal (gold) only molecule or so thick and hoped that would lead the way for tiny, laser produced integrated circuits, processors, and digital memory storage that were on the molecular scale - unfortunately I cannot find a single thing about that "discovery" since 2003!
Musta fallen through!
I did read the article but in order for it to hold it must be preserved at some ungodly cold temperature. This will take at least a decade before we see anything from this find. Oh I forgot that is what usually happens with these types of discoveries. You find a way to make it possible and others then find a way to make it a reality for consumption of the masses.
It's like the 4 minute mile. At one point there were scientist who said there was no way a human could run a sub-four minute mile.
As one might be a bit skeptical of what is released I'm also as skeptical about those that say it is inconceivable. Science is about going forward and learning things that know one thought of ever before. The great thing about science is when it is right that it awards the greatest imaginations and their perception to reality.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
??” Thomas Jefferson
sigpic
Comment