221–230 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is what it means. :)
That can't be it because the error wouldn't straddle the speed of light. It would put the range at 1.000022 c to 1.000080 c, both of which exceed c, so they wouldn't have written it off as error.
I'm very skeptical about this. It seems like every time a "supposed" scientific discovery gets published in the media before a peer-reviewed journal, it's almost always wrong. The same thing happened with cold fusion, Ida (aka. Darwinius) the supposed "missing link" between human and ape, and NASA's "supposed" discovery of bacterium growth through arsenic instead of phosphorus. It's always disheartening when science…
This wasn't characterized as a discovery, either by the reporter or the scientists involved. But it is really interesting. Either you didn't RTFA or I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one releases data in journals, at least not in astronomy. There are dedicated sites for this, e.g. http://archive.stsci.edu/ About the later date: I think it's reasonable that those that put together the proposal and thought up the project have a chance at getting their results out first. Otherwise, why would you go through the effort of planning and executing observations if you could just poach someone else's da…
The data cite people http://datacite.org/ are trying to figure out how to create "data papers" and "data journals" that would let publishing data get a "peer-review" status that would help people advance towards tenure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the point is that there was a neutrino burst coincident with SN87a. So if there was one 4yr earlier, too, then you'd have to explain how the same event produced two bursts of neutrinos with different speeds, while within the burst they apparently had exactly the same speed. If neutrinos have mass, they can travel at any speed (Edit: In fact, the arrival interval of those neutrinos puts an upper limit on the neu…
Maybe the neutrinos that appeared 3 hours before the event are from another event altogether (one that occurred even further away, whose light particles haven't even reached us yet)?
Thats a whole lot of time delay, not a "tiny fraction" as the reports say. Light travels about 18m (~60 feet) in that time. A modern cpu will have processed more than 100 instructions in that time interval. So you don't actually need a CERN quality clock to measure it.
So if this turns out to be due to systematic errors of various kinds, I'm wondering what other measurements from the lab will be cast into doubt as a consequence!
Exciting result and possibly exciting times ahead for physics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. In this world, it is true that scientists rarely keep the data secret, more often than not, silly conspiracy theorist views notwithstanding. Business-sponsored science is very often secret, but please don't attempt to paint, as the parent commenter disingenuously attempts to do, that scientists are the root of data secrecy. There have been now six separate inquiries into the misguided, corporation driven, politic…
I don't know about scienctists in general, but at least in climate science it is not true that scientists rarely keep the data secret. You can review untold number of cases of this on climateaudit.org and the justifications by the stonewallers are extremely poor. Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye.
First of all, "climate science" != "science as a whole".
Second, if any scientific field ends up in the crosshairs of a well-funded politically motivated movement working against it at any cost, then it will become hostile towards skeptics and eventually start stonewalling them. This happened in biology re: critics of evolution (in the anti-evolution camps there are tons of complaints about censorship, refusal to address criticisms, provide data, share models and code, etc.), and whereas it's always possible to address criticisms, the other side is always willing to spend more money to poke new "holes" in the theory, and you'll just never win.
"Skeptics" like to portray the ultimate goal of science as if it's to continually try to poke holes in existing theories, because progress is made when theories are disproven. But that's not science. Science is when you mix a desire to poke holes in theories with a reasonable threshold of acceptance, a willingness to step back and say "Okay, we've spent a lot of energy coming up with arguments as to why this is wrong, and they've been addressed satisfactorily, so this is probably right, let's see if this takes us anywhere new rather than getting stuck arguing the point".
Climate skeptics lack the willingness, even in theory, to accept that enough is enough - I don't believe for one moment that there is, even in principle, any piece of evidence that would lessen the amount of criticism against AGW. I don't believe they would give in because we've already seen that no amount of evidence reduced the amount of anti-evolution noise, and it's by and large the same sources of funding and political motivation that's behind both movements.
Now, it very well may be the case that climate scientists also lack the willingness to admit that they're wrong (actually, I think this is pretty likely), in which case they're not doing science, either, and that's bad. I'm totally in agreement there.
But they're taking exactly the approach to the skeptics that they would (and arguably, should) be taking if they were doing proper science. So the way they deal with skeptics is not a point of evidence either for or against the honesty of their scientific investigations, it's merely an inevitable result of the politicization of their field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. There's a reason why open access journals (PLoS One) are getting so popular, scientists want to be known and publish. In my experience, ego is a currency much more valuable than money in academic circles.
> Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. In a better world, that would be true. In this world, it's not. Most of the climate science data that Phil Jones and others have worked with, and most of their models are secret. It is THIS that makes me keep at least one ear open for the "anti-" side in the climate debate. Real science SHOULD be conducted out in the open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not secret then, but to be released at a later date. Or released in one of those journals that most of cannot access.
Most journals can be accessed by those working professionally in the field . Some argue this isn't good enough (and I have some sympathy for those arguments). But it's very different to a deliberate action to hide or obscure information.
That said, it's very true that this is worlds different from maliciously withholding data.
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neu…
I very much doubt they completely vacuumed the path of the neutrino to the same degree as it is in outer space. It is possible that neutrinos travel at the same speed as light in vacuum, but travel much faster when there's other material present in the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
> He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit") If you can't make an argument without resorting to name calling in the first line, please excuse me while I disregard anything at all you have to say. kthxbye.