Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

LHC and light speed

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:15:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
OK now, it has been "claimed" that the LHC has moved neutrinos beyond the speed of light, Rendering all of man's perceived knowledge reason and logic of physics time and space wrong. OOO that's gotta sting in the "know it all" academic world. Am I to use "blind faith" and believe what I am told? I can never check or verify or see anything that comes from the LHC. I can't even enter the facility. Will objective skeptics be allowed in? Or will it be like the science used in climate change? No skeptics allowed. The results are what we say they are. Time will certainly tell. I belive the source of the funding for the LHC will dictate the direction.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
sadolite your skepticism of the scientific community is both illuminating and disturbing. The politicization of science is possibly the greatest failure of the modern world. Instead of science first, as it should be, it is politics (and accompanying economic theories thereof) first, and science is only recognized when it is decided that it either supports a particular agenda or it is economically responsible enough to do so.

However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment? How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:44:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:

However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment?

Increased funding

How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?

The experiment was done once, right? There have been numerous examples of science falsification. As stated, there are great incentives to falsify data.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:54:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:44:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:



However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment?

Increased funding

If they have machines that can get just close to the speed of light, they are not short of funding. Those that usually falsify for that reason, are sectors that have limited funding to begin with.


How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?

The experiment was done once, right? There have been numerous examples of science falsification. As stated, there are great incentives to falsify data.

And they have stated that they want independent testing to verify the results before doing anything.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:04:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:54:03 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:44:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:



However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment?

Increased funding

If they have machines that can get just close to the speed of light, they are not short of funding. Those that usually falsify for that reason, are sectors that have limited funding to begin with.


How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?

The experiment was done once, right? There have been numerous examples of science falsification. As stated, there are great incentives to falsify data.

And they have stated that they want independent testing to verify the results before doing anything.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."

Fair enough.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:26:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Having dabbled with hard sciences myself in my major, I know the rigor that scientists at that level undergo in order to conduct an experiment like this. Providing false data "for funding" is really not an effective means for any type of gain. Scientists are gauged by their objectivity, accuracy, and dependability. These scientists are not going to look good if their results are not confirmed. I know that, since climate-gate, the general public opinion has been that science is politically-fueled but it's really not. That particular study was one out of countless thousands that supported GCC Theory and it would be just as nonsensical to say that every politician shoots people, based on Dick Cheney's hunting "accident," as it would to say that every scientific study is flawed and biased towards an agenda. Scientists do have political stances and bias, but the scientific process is designed to minimize this and one of scientists' main goals is to eliminate bias from their research.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:33:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 10:26:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Having dabbled with hard sciences myself in my major, I know the rigor that scientists at that level undergo in order to conduct an experiment like this. Providing false data "for funding" is really not an effective means for any type of gain. Scientists are gauged by their objectivity, accuracy, and dependability. These scientists are not going to look good if their results are not confirmed. I know that, since climate-gate, the general public opinion has been that science is politically-fueled but it's really not. That particular study was one out of countless thousands that supported GCC Theory and it would be just as nonsensical to say that every politician shoots people, based on Dick Cheney's hunting "accident," as it would to say that every scientific study is flawed and biased towards an agenda. Scientists do have political stances and bias, but the scientific process is designed to minimize this and one of scientists' main goals is to eliminate bias from their research.

Yes, I believe that science should be unbiased and the scientific community general tries to do this. However, that does not mean it isn't. Even if the science is accurate, the resources dedicated to a certain study could be bias. For example, funding can be provided more for one of two competing theory.
Funding is provided by the state, so there's going to be bias. There will always be bias no matter who provides the funding. Also, as I stated, falsifying data can lead to more funding, so there are incentives to do it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:38:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 10:33:03 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 10:26:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Having dabbled with hard sciences myself in my major, I know the rigor that scientists at that level undergo in order to conduct an experiment like this. Providing false data "for funding" is really not an effective means for any type of gain. Scientists are gauged by their objectivity, accuracy, and dependability. These scientists are not going to look good if their results are not confirmed. I know that, since climate-gate, the general public opinion has been that science is politically-fueled but it's really not. That particular study was one out of countless thousands that supported GCC Theory and it would be just as nonsensical to say that every politician shoots people, based on Dick Cheney's hunting "accident," as it would to say that every scientific study is flawed and biased towards an agenda. Scientists do have political stances and bias, but the scientific process is designed to minimize this and one of scientists' main goals is to eliminate bias from their research.

Yes, I believe that science should be unbiased and the scientific community general tries to do this. However, that does not mean it isn't. Even if the science is accurate, the resources dedicated to a certain study could be bias. For example, funding can be provided more for one of two competing theory.
Funding is provided by the state, so there's going to be bias. There will always be bias no matter who provides the funding. Also, as I stated, falsifying data can lead to more funding, so there are incentives to do it.

Falsifying data is far more likely to lead to less funding, since in nearly all scientific fields, results need to be able to be repeated by independent parties. The only cases are when the funder has a strong bias (environmentalism for government, medicine for big phrama, etc). This is not likely the case from this study.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:41:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 10:38:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/23/2011 10:33:03 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 10:26:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Having dabbled with hard sciences myself in my major, I know the rigor that scientists at that level undergo in order to conduct an experiment like this. Providing false data "for funding" is really not an effective means for any type of gain. Scientists are gauged by their objectivity, accuracy, and dependability. These scientists are not going to look good if their results are not confirmed. I know that, since climate-gate, the general public opinion has been that science is politically-fueled but it's really not. That particular study was one out of countless thousands that supported GCC Theory and it would be just as nonsensical to say that every politician shoots people, based on Dick Cheney's hunting "accident," as it would to say that every scientific study is flawed and biased towards an agenda. Scientists do have political stances and bias, but the scientific process is designed to minimize this and one of scientists' main goals is to eliminate bias from their research.

Yes, I believe that science should be unbiased and the scientific community general tries to do this. However, that does not mean it isn't. Even if the science is accurate, the resources dedicated to a certain study could be bias. For example, funding can be provided more for one of two competing theory.
Funding is provided by the state, so there's going to be bias. There will always be bias no matter who provides the funding. Also, as I stated, falsifying data can lead to more funding, so there are incentives to do it.

Falsifying data is far more likely to lead to less funding, since in nearly all scientific fields, results need to be able to be repeated by independent parties. The only cases are when the funder has a strong bias (environmentalism for government, medicine for big phrama, etc). This is not likely the case from this study.

Wasn't talking about the study, but in general. I agreed with you. However, to state that all scientists are completely objective and do not falsify data is a stretch. Note, I'm not "anti-science". Just stating that the above possibilities are accurate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 1:03:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
sadolite your skepticism of the scientific community is both illuminating and disturbing. The politicization of science is possibly the greatest failure of the modern world. Instead of science first, as it should be, it is politics (and accompanying economic theories thereof) first, and science is only recognized when it is decided that it either supports a particular agenda or it is economically responsible enough to do so.

However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment? How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?

"How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?"

There are two types of "scientific method" The kind they use in "real science" and the kind they use in aggenda based science, like for example: The "scientific method" they use in climate change science. They results are what they say they are, anyone who chalenges them is a denier. It does not matter that thousands and thousands of other scientist disagree with their findings. They are all just deniers.

First of all, I did not politicize science. I used to trust it. I have no reason what so ever to believe anything that the scientific community puts forth anymore. Espeacialy any research that is funded by gov't.

The scientific community did it to it's self. It lets politicians speak for them. It lets politicians decide what will be studied and the manner in which it will be studyed to get the desired outcome or finding that politicians want. The scientific community will do what ever it takes to continue to recive funding. It will tell bald face lies if it has to.

They need their toys to play with, they cost money. No useful results and the money dries up. The reason you should be skeptical of the LHC is that it is a huge massive money pit. If it doesn't produce anything of value, what idiotic numskull is going to continue to dump millions and millions of dollars into it other than someone in gov't with an agenda.

You can't get a private investor to touch it with a ten foot pole. As a matter of fact the scientific community tried to have it built here in the US but it was rejected. So what did they do, they renamed it moved it to another country and convinced a few politicians in the appropriations committee to help pay for it anyway. It, from it's very beginning is built upon deception. Why would they put forth exaggerated or false findings? First thing I can think of is all the endless maintenance contracts and parts contracts. It's a cash cow of legendary proportions. It is an economy within itself.

More is spent on employing people and maintenance and parts than entire GDP's of small countries. So ya, my skepticism is founded and will remain.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 1:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 1:03:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:40:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
sadolite your skepticism of the scientific community is both illuminating and disturbing. The politicization of science is possibly the greatest failure of the modern world. Instead of science first, as it should be, it is politics (and accompanying economic theories thereof) first, and science is only recognized when it is decided that it either supports a particular agenda or it is economically responsible enough to do so.

However, I have to say that this particular issue is not obviously politically polarizing. What intent do you see behind falsifying this experiment? How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?


"How would it be possible to falsify it at all, when the scientific method explicitly calls for rigorous retesting?"

There are two types of "scientific method" The kind they use in "real science" and the kind they use in aggenda based science, like for example: The "scientific method" they use in climate change science. They results are what they say they are, anyone who chalenges them is a denier. It does not matter that thousands and thousands of other scientist disagree with their findings. They are all just deniers.


First of all, I did not politicize science. I used to trust it. I have no reason what so ever to believe anything that the scientific community puts forth anymore. Espeacialy any research that is funded by gov't.

The scientific community did it to it's self. It lets politicians speak for them. It lets politicians decide what will be studied and the manner in which it will be studyed to get the desired outcome or finding that politicians want. The scientific community will do what ever it takes to continue to recive funding. It will tell bald face lies if it has to.

They need their toys to play with, they cost money. No useful results and the money dries up. The reason you should be skeptical of the LHC is that it is a huge massive money pit. If it doesn't produce anything of value, what idiotic numskull is going to continue to dump millions and millions of dollars into it other than someone in gov't with an agenda.

You can't get a private investor to touch it with a ten foot pole. As a matter of fact the scientific community tried to have it built here in the US but it was rejected. So what did they do, they renamed it moved it to another country and convinced a few politicians in the appropriations committee to help pay for it anyway. It, from it's very beginning is built upon deception. Why would they put forth exaggerated or false findings? First thing I can think of is all the endless maintenance contracts and parts contracts. It's a cash cow of legendary proportions. It is an economy within itself.

More is spent on employing people and maintenance and parts than entire GDP's of small countries. So ya, my skepticism is founded and will remain.

One thing is for sure, You will have to use "Blind faith" to belive what ever they put forth. You will not be allowed access to the data.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 3:41:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So we should leave cosmology, theoretical physics, etc. in the hands of private investors and wait patiently until they decide that these endeavors are more profitable than Sham-Wows and the All New 2012 Toyota Corolla?
Rob
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:39:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Finally, another person who is fed up with the bias of the current scientific community. A paradigm shift is in order.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:42:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:39:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
Finally, another person who is fed up with the bias of the current scientific community. A paradigm shift is in order.

This guy is part of the scientific community. He is doing his job, he isn't "fed up" with anything. Read the article and you'll realize he is ENCOURAGING the establishment to falsify him.

Stop projecting.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 8:22:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 3:41:39 PM, Lasagna wrote:
So we should leave cosmology, theoretical physics, etc. in the hands of private investors and wait patiently until they decide that these endeavors are more profitable than Sham-Wows and the All New 2012 Toyota Corolla?

Um, Ya as a matter of fact.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%