Tarski Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) The second half of the story usually doesn't get enough airplay.For those of you (and you know who you are) that crowed about this faster than light neutrino thing (for some weird anti-science reason), I offer the second half of the story which in general terms turned out like some of us knew it would:It was just a loose cable.... Edited April 24, 2012 by Tarski
Calm Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 That's too bad....not because I am antiscience, I am just proweird science, it's so much fun.
shalamabobbi Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Yes, I read about this shortly after it came out. May I ad my voice in proclaiming "NEENER NEENER" to the anti-science crowd..
Calm Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Don't you guys like little oddities of science? Or do you prefer it all to be cut and dried?
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Yeah, I'm not surprised this turned out to be the case, but I am pretty bummed. Woulda been so cool!
shalamabobbi Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Little oddity is an understatement. Grand self-contradiction with everything that is known is more apropos.Most scientists knew how this would turn out, though at least one that I know of went on record stating he hoped it were real because it would open new doors, etc., but I think he knew better..
Log Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Who's anti-science? What I found interesting were the rationalizations brought to bear in explaining the phenomenon before this ultimate explanation was discovered. 1
shalamabobbi Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Who's anti-science? What I found interesting were the rationalizations brought to bear in explaining the phenomenon before this ultimate explanation was discovered.There weren't any from me.. NEENER NEENER
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I expected it would be a minor error but hoped it wouldn't be.I tried to do this: 3
Whiskeypete Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Who's anti-science? What I found interesting were the rationalizations brought to bear in explaining the phenomenon before this ultimate explanation was discovered.Yes, but there were plenty of people, especially those who tend to favor religious explanations for the physical world, rather than "scientific" ones, who were saying things like, "See, scientists don't know everything. The theory of relativity has just been disproven, and you know that evolution is just a theory too"
rodheadlee Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 So there can't ever be FTL travel? or ansible communications?
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 So there can't ever be FTL travel? or ansible communications?Not by any method we know of which doesn't make it impossible. To some this makes it seem improbable.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I am not anti science, but I like it when knew light is shed on something and theories change. I thought it might happen here but I was doubtful. Oh well. Now what I am is anti numbers. I hate numbers I really had prime numbers. Ugh!!
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I always assumed it was a technical glitch, but just think of the possiblilities if it panned out. Warp Drive still needs some work.
phaedrus ut Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 This is exactly why science is beautiful and why the scientific method works. Phaedrus
Log Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) This is exactly why science is beautiful and why the scientific method works.LOL Edited April 24, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Science by definition is always tentative so in that sense it is always wrong and always right. Newton wasn't wrong, but Einstein was better, Einstein wasn't wrong, but Quantum Mechanics is better. Assuming something will replace QM doesn't make it wrong just that that something is better. Further I don't need a God(real or imagined) to tell me that. Edited April 24, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Tarski Posted April 24, 2012 Author Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Science by definition is always tentative so in that sense it is always wrong and always right. Newton wasn't wrong, but Einstein was better, Einstein wasn't wrong, but Quantum Mechanics is better. Assuming something will replace QM doesn't make it wrong just that that something is better. Further I don't need a God(real or imagined) to tell me that.On the other hand, some things are just wrong--really really wrong. Pick any religion and go down the list of "revealed" doctrines and supernatural stories believed on faith for examples.Or, pick any one of FrankTalk's favorite fringe theories. Edited April 24, 2012 by Tarski
mfbukowski Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 On the other hand, some things are just wrong--really really wrong. Pick any religion and go down the list of "revealed" doctrines and supernatural stories believed on faith for examples.Or, pick any one of FrankTalk's favorite fringe theories.Aw come on dude!Religion gives us all purpose in life- What would you do with your time if you couldn't come here and tell us all how dumb we are??
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 LOLWhat a lot of drivel. Science is wrong 89% of the time? What? Why do people like this use the internet if they are convinced quantum theory is most likely wrong?
Log Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) What a lot of drivel. Science is wrong 89% of the time? What? Why do people like this use the internet if they are convinced quantum theory is most likely wrong?I so dare you to take it up with Vox. Please don't chicken out! Edited April 25, 2012 by Log
Tarski Posted April 25, 2012 Author Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) That's too bad....not because I am antiscience, I am just proweird science, it's so much fun.I like weird too (and relativity is plenty weird) but there is something even better than "weird" and that is the brilliant light that breaks in thanks to one monumental insight. The conceptual clarity afforded by Lorentz invariance and other closely related symmetry principles (spin etc) cannot be overstated. Millions of pieces of the puzzle suddenly made sense at a higher level and that light keeps shinning into new corners everyday.I think that only people who have seen deeply into this matter can fully appreciate how ugly, ridiculous and jumbled physics would be if the essential insights of relativity were to be withdrawn. Of course, it is conceivable that higher principles might be found that subsume these principles (maybe in some sense this has already happened before e.g. with general relativity).Besides, it is weird too. If it failed we would lose weirdness! Before relativity, there was no speed limit that we knew of and it is down right weird that there should be one. (Why couldn't a bullet shot from rocket which was already travelling very very nearly the speed of light, exceed that speed? Common sense says relative speeds should just add.)Lorentz invariance is what gives us time dialation and ruler shortening so it is plenty weird already and once spacetime curvature and quantum theory get into the picture we get even more weirdness. But it isn't the mere weirdness that so pleases the fringe science nuts. It is real insight into a strange but real world--our world. Edited April 25, 2012 by Tarski
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) I so dare you to take it up with Vox. Please don't chicken out!From his website:What is your IQ?Over the so-called "genius" threshhold. Some people can't seem to figure out that the 132 IQ Mensa requirement (Stanford-Binet) is a floor, not a ceiling.Is there a point to trying to debate someone like this? IQ comparison is the kind of thing done by the loser populations at school and is roughly the equivalent of other guys comparing the size of a particular organ in a locker room and just as valuable an insight into their persona.Why do you hate socialism?Because it is an economic absurdity built on a false premise of value, an ideological monstrosity constructed upon the worst aspects of human nature, and a form of societal organization that is both intrinsically inefficient from an economic perspective and reliably dangerous from a political one.Keep in mind this guy moved to Italy of all places. (cough)Hypocrite.No interest in discussions with this guy. At the risk of being offensive beating this guy would be participating in the Special Olympics. Even if I win I'm retarded by definition for competing. Edited April 25, 2012 by The Nehor
Log Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Well, that's disappointing. I was so hoping you'd tell him he was wrong - the only thing is, when he says something like "Even the best, 'gold standard' science has been reported to be 89 percent unreliable, as a matter of fact," he can, and will, back it up.I liked this post of his - directly on topic, even:What is clear from all of this is that the scientists and science fetishists fantasizing of a technocratic dictatorship that will usher in the shiny, sexy, science fiction, seculatopia of their dreams haven't realized is that their totalitarian vision will ultimately be a dictatorship of the IT department. Edited April 25, 2012 by Log
Calm Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 there was no speed limit that we knew of and it is down right weird that there should be oneYou are right on that one.
Recommended Posts