The Science & Skepticism Thread

[Kaolin]

Trying to drag this back a little... This link does a responsible job of explaining the importance and flaws of peer review. Peer review is the key part of academic publishing, when it works, (and in my experience it does most of the time) it proves hugely important quality control, unlike the daily fail...

 

[Llamaman]

Anthropogenic Climate Change IS science... but yes, some topics are always likely to turn into bun fights and that is one.
We should also ban
Cloning
Stem cell research
Genetic modification
Evolution

Basically, life sciences. Hard physics FTW

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Anthropogenic Climate Change IS science... but yes, some topics are always likely to turn into bun fights and that is one.
We should also ban
Cloning
Stem cell research
Genetic modification
Evolution

Basically, life sciences. Hard physics FTW

Lets not even mention the social sciences!

 

[Llamaman]

Lets not even mention the social sciences!

Yes, this is not the 'colouring in' thread.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Yes, this is not the 'colouring in' thread.

Having said that, if I was ever to take an OU course or similar, it would be in psychology, I'm fascinated by that area.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Scientists Detect Mysterious Radio Signals

Interesting story on IFL Science. http://www.iflscience.com/space/more-fast-radio-bursts-fewer-explanations

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Lols at the following from the article

Superficially similar bursts, dubbed perytons, turned out to be produced by microwave ovens being prematurely opened in telescope tea rooms.

Doh!

 

[neil_g]

What? The most important thing that threatens the world & you don't want to discuss it?

quite the opposite however its such a big topic on its own its sidetracking this one slightly. so..

Carl, how about you start a thread about this?

..that way when it turns into a bun fight the mods can just lock that one rather than ruining this one

 

[OldCarlos]

Carl, how about you start a thread about this? I (and it seems other in this thread) were hoping for this to be nice place to come and have a chat about all things sciency. You are more than entitled to voice your opinion, but what about choosing the best place to do that?

Phil, reading the thread title, I'd have thought it the best/obvious place for a chat about the climate change con, but similar to many threads in TP, some folk start to get personal or offended with opposing views.

Mods; If it's possible to split this off to a separate thread? it's ok with me

 

[jbw]

How about somebody suggesting a topic. Examples - Why the two biggest theories in physical science can't be reconciled , the Big Bang, why there is no 'now' in physics, does it make sense to ask what was before the initial creation event, quantum physics - is it really that weird, what is the nature of reality at the sub atomic level, etc - must be loads of things to discuss
James

 

[big soft moose]

But suppose they are right? A problem with accepting data after analysis is that years later someone will come along with better data showing the contrary is true. Think of how, for so many years, we've been told that eating fat makes you ill and therefore quietly accepted all the sugar that's been fed to us.

Back to what I said.

that just highlight the diffeence between looking at the science and getting your information from the media - anyone who has studied the science of nutrition has always known that too much sugar is bad for you and that a healthy diet is balanced (and for that matter that there are varying sorts of both fat and sugar and their effect on your health depends on the specific types and quantities)

The media always oversimplifies things in the name of creating a headline , but in truth the science behind why eating too much of certain sorts of fat is bad for you has not been overturnned by new data - eating lots of fatty processed rubbish is still bad for you , likewise with sugar the science doesnt suggest that you don't eat any - it suggests as it always has done that the body needs some carbs for fuel but most of these should be in slow release varieties such as potatoes, porridge, pasta, rice etc, and that we should only consume a small ammount of fast release carbs (especially sucrose)

None of this is news to someone who is aware of the science- I recall learning the basics in GCSE biology and refining my understanding whilst involved in college sports.

The same is true of the global warming argument - someone who understands the science doesnt just 'accept the data after analysis' they understand why the analysis is correct (if it is)

 

[OldCarlos]

The same is true of the global warming argument - someone who understands the science doesnt just 'accept the data after analysis' they understand why the analysis is correct (if it is)

But is it ever right or acceptable to tweak figures or change things, to show what you are saying is true or not? (

 

[Deleted member 49549]

How about somebody suggesting a topic. Examples - Why the two biggest theories in physical science can't be reconciled , the Big Bang, why there is no 'now' in physics, does it make sense to ask what was before the initial creation event, quantum physics - is it really that weird, what is the nature of reality at the sub atomic level, etc - must be loads of things to discuss
James

Thats an interesting topic! I have read that there are schools within physics that believe there is no such definition of the flow of time (this based on a quickly skimmed article some years ago, so I maybe wide of the mark.....)

I have just had a quick browse and have found these articles and added them to my instapaper queue.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time
http://physicscentral.com/explore/plus/timeless.cfm
http://themindunleashed.org/2015/02/time-never-never-will.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/

This article seems quite challenging, but there may be parts clear to laymen such as myself
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

 

[Llamaman]

Yes, I remember reading about a theory that there is only one electron in the universe, shuttling backwards and forwards in time so that it is everywhere at once.

Get your head around that!

 

[big soft moose]

But is it ever right or acceptable to tweak figures or change things, to show what you are saying is true or not? (

Its not right to actively falsify your data - like that knob who claimed to have discovered cold fusion but actually hadn't - that way lies academic death

It can be right to adjust figures to take known factors into account so long as you are honest about what you've done - that happens all the time in science to account for margins of error etc

Of course scientists arent responsible for what some f***wit journalist/politician/talking head does with their findings when representing them to the public - which again is why people need to look at the actual science, not what they read in the mail / guardian

 

[big soft moose]

Yes, I remember reading about a theory that there is only one electron in the universe, shuttling backwards and forwards in time so that it is everywhere at once.

Get your head around that!

how does that track with the theory about electrons being in two places at once ...

 

[OldCarlos]

It can be right to adjust figures to take known factors into account so long as you are honest about what you've done

But what about using weather data from airports for example, which is great, as intended for pilots & flight control etc but being used in climate models?

With data collected from airports through poorly placed equipment , it's little wonder this unrepresentative data shows we are undergoing global warming at ground level near to jet engines at airports

Some of the models are wrong because the top layer in the met office model is cloud and the middle layers, where all this nasty carbon dioxide accumulates, is not warming at all.
The warming is happening at ground level.

 

[Cobra]

Thanks. I could read the thread but neither post, nor look at the details of other members by clicking on their handle. Will go back & recheck.

I can like a post but cannot comment in the thread - tried on 2 different computers with different OSs (both firefox as a browser). It doesn't matter now since the points I had to make are long gone.

This thread should answer your questions.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/cant-post-in-a-thread.608665/

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not aware of any such data being in the IPCC reports - that sounds like a deniers urban myth - if you read the IPCC summary i linked earlier you will see that they are talking about mean ocean temperatures, which has jacks*** to do with temperatures at airports

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}

from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

also the fundamental understanding of how global warming works appears to be lacking in your post - the basic idea is that the CO2 in the troposhere and other such gases act like a greenhouse (in very basic terms), so you wouldnt expect the warming to be happening where the gasses accumulate, you'd expect it to be happening at ground level (and the lower atmosphere) where the heat is reflected back to - in the same way that the glass on a greenhouse is nowhere near as warm as the air inside it. (hence the terrm greenhouse effect)

also when you say the top layer is cloud - this too is over simplistic to the point of being wrong - the issue is CO2 accumluation below 15km from AGL (ie in the troposhere) - cloud also forms in the tropshre but can be substantially lower than the upper limit, or indeed not present at all as cloud formation comes and goes.

 

[big soft moose]

The same lack of understanding is evident in much of what deniers present as evidence - for example the idea that the sea ice is not shrinking is bandied about - but the truth is that the sea ice grows and shrinks each year with the seasons so obviously it expands from its summer extent to its winter extent each year... however when climate change experts talk about sea ice retreating they are talking about the average extent of the winter ice being less than it was previously based on years and years of data ... and indeed the average extent of the summer icebeing less than that were previoisly too.

Its like when halfwits on facebook say stuff like, "global warming clearly doesnt exist because its cold outside" - they havent understood that GW is about an increase in average global temperature, not the seasonal fluctuations in localised temp.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

how does that track with the theory about electrons being in two places at once ...

It's my understanding that electrons are all places at the same time within that particular atom's electron "cloud".

 

[ancient_mariner]

that just highlight the diffeence between looking at the science and getting your information from the media - anyone who has studied the science of nutrition has always known that too much sugar is bad for you and that a healthy diet is balanced (and for that matter that there are varying sorts of both fat and sugar and their effect on your health depends on the specific types and quantities)

The media always oversimplifies things in the name of creating a headline , but in truth the science behind why eating too much of certain sorts of fat is bad for you has not been overturnned by new data - eating lots of fatty processed rubbish is still bad for you , likewise with sugar the science doesnt suggest that you don't eat any - it suggests as it always has done that the body needs some carbs for fuel but most of these should be in slow release varieties such as potatoes, porridge, pasta, rice etc, and that we should only consume a small ammount of fast release carbs (especially sucrose)

None of this is news to someone who is aware of the science- I recall learning the basics in GCSE biology and refining my understanding whilst involved in college sports.

The same is true of the global warming argument - someone who understands the science doesnt just 'accept the data after analysis' they understand why the analysis is correct (if it is)

Maybe I'm a little out of touch, but I tend to view those working in medicine as being scientists too, and it wasn't long ago that medical care was still pushing fat=bad. Processed is another thing entirely, and I didn't bring that up. Yes, nutritionists have been aware of things differently from that, but coming from a family where heart disease has been a problem, fat was very much the bogeyman at one time.

 

[OldCarlos]

I'm not aware of any such data being in the IPCC reports - that sounds like a deniers urban myth - if you read the IPCC summary i linked earlier you will see that they are talking about mean ocean temperatures, which has jacks*** to do with temperatures at airports

Given that he IPCC doesn't carry out its own original research, but bases its assessment on published literature, isn't it possible that some of the data provided could flawed?

It wasn't that many years ago that the UN's top climate change guy, who is/was a well respected scientist, resigned because there was a bit of a furore re closing down lots of monitoring stations around the world. They just happened to be ones in the colder areas & at higher altitudes, which then showed a jump in temperatures in following data.

 

[Llamaman]

how does that track with the theory about electrons being in two places at once ...

If you mean the theory that an electron is a probability cloud, comfortably. Heisenberg famously permits a particle to occupy multiple positions.

The novelty of the theory I read was that if you had 2 such electrons, they were in effect the same electron in different places with possibly different states. I admit as a humble Earth scientist (and nearly 15 years out of the game) the detail sailed way over my head.

 

[big soft moose]

Maybe I'm a little out of touch, but I tend to view those working in medicine as being scientists too, and it wasn't long ago that medical care was still pushing fat=bad. Processed is another thing entirely, and I didn't bring that up. Yes, nutritionists have been aware of things differently from that, but coming from a family where heart disease has been a problem, fat was very much the bogeyman at one time.

Thats because fat is bad (well certain types of fat consumed to excess) - medical care was right to be pushing that , and indeed still will be doing so. Its not as simple as we thought fat was bad but now its sugar which is how the media tend to report it , certain types of either are bad when consumed to excess , and doctors have known that for ages

 

[big soft moose]

Given that he IPCC doesn't carry out its own original research, but bases its assessment on published literature, isn't it possible that some of the data provided could flawed?

It wasn't that many years ago that the UN's top climate change guy, who is/was a well respected scientist, resigned because there was a bit of a furore re closing down lots of monitoring stations around the world. They just happened to be ones in the colder areas & at higher altitudes, which then showed a jump in temperatures in following data.

Again you are repeating denier myths with little or no founding in reality - the idea that research stations in colder areas were closed leading to a jump in temperatures is kindergarten thinking - in reality the figures given for average temperatures are clearly backstopped with apendices of data showing how the averages were arrived at , including the lat and long of where temperature readings were taken

and with regard to the IPCC and research you will note that every 'fact' in the report has a confidence value attached - if the data provided is flawed it will have been picked up and either ommitted or be confidence 'low' or 'very low'

 

[big soft moose]

If you mean the theory that an electron is a probability cloud, comfortably. Heisenberg famously permits a particle to occupy multiple positions.

The novelty of the theory I read was that if you had 2 such electrons, they were in effect the same electron in different places with possibly different states. I admit as a humble Earth scientist (and nearly 15 years out of the game) the detail sailed way over my head.

I was reffering to this http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...tum-idUSBRE8980V620121009#mrYtCxWJfDHhxjjt.97 and also the double slit wave duality theorem , I think i originally read it in new scientist. Like you my background is earth science/ecology so a lot of the higher physics while interesting is beyond my ken

 

[Llamaman]

I did physics to a-level so am familiar with wave/particle duality - it's the same thing essentially as the 'electron cloud' description.

Quantum theory states that particles have a probability of being in any specific place and state - the probability function collapses when you measure it.

The double slit experiment shows this - a single electron has to go through one slit or the other (particle) but a stream of electrons occupy all positions according to probability so you get a wave form behind the slits, not two lines as you would expect from classical particle theory.

I've explained that really poorly - sorry

 

[ZoneV]

If you mean the theory that an electron is a probability cloud, comfortably. Heisenberg famously permits a particle to occupy multiple positions.

The novelty of the theory I read was that if you had 2 such electrons, they were in effect the same electron in different places with possibly different states. I admit as a humble Earth scientist (and nearly 15 years out of the game) the detail sailed way over my head.

Isn't it something to do with the angle of the dangle?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thats because fat is bad (well certain types of fat consumed to excess) - medical care was right to be pushing that , and indeed still will be doing so. Its not as simple as we thought fat was bad but now its sugar which is how the media tend to report it , certain types of either are bad when consumed to excess , and doctors have known that for ages

Doctors have 'known that for ages' but they haven't been spreading that message for ages. Please don't 'try me' by media I don't read.

 

[sirch]

How about somebody suggesting a topic. Examples - Why the two biggest theories in physical science can't be reconciled , the Big Bang, why there is no 'now' in physics, does it make sense to ask what was before the initial creation event, quantum physics - is it really that weird, what is the nature of reality at the sub atomic level, etc - must be loads of things to discuss
James

Here's a bit of scepticism for you and I have asked this of lot of people and on a number of forums where people who know about this sort of thing live and never got a convincing answer:

Why is time treated as a dimension and not just as a function of the finite speed of light? If time were just the rate of propagation of change it seems to solve a lot of the concerns about the arrow of time because it is simply impossible to undo change, trying to undo a change uses energy, creates more entropy and so actually creates more change.

 

[big soft moose]

Doctors have 'known that for ages' but they haven't been spreading that message for ages. Please don't 'try me' by media I don't read.

yes they have - doctors have both known and publicised for ages that excess consumption of certain sorts of fat and certain sorts of sugar are bad for you ...if your doctor didnt know that you might want to see a different doctor.

what is possibly true is that the obsession with saturated fat as the 'bad guy' has distracted people from other hazards of an unbalanced diet , but thats not to say that saturated fat is suddenly not bad for you - the BHF for example still recomend that you reduce your consumption of saturated fats as well as 'free' sugars

There is an interesting article on this here http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...1980s-fat-guidelines-misguided-say-scientists the basic thrust of which is that to reduce the risk of heart disease you need to focus on a whole diet approach not on reduction of any one particular nutrient

 

[Llamaman]

Here's a bit of scepticism for you and I have asked this of lot of people and on a number of forums where people who know about this sort of thing live and never got a convincing answer:

Why is time treated as a dimension and not just as a function of the finite speed of light? If time were just the rate of propagation of change it seems to solve a lot of the concerns about the arrow of time because it is simply impossible to undo change, trying to undo a change uses energy, creates more entropy and so actually creates more change.

'Entropy is time's arrow'

 

[kendo1]

 

[sirch]

'Entropy is time's arrow'

Yes but a few bright people tell us that time is a dimension and therefore we should be able to travel in either direction, I disagree but I would like to know why

 

[big soft moose]

It seems some slovenian scientists agree with you ( I think) but what they are saying goes well over my head

Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...laims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

 

[ancient_mariner]

It may also be a problem that we want to view time digitally - break it into discrete chunks if you like - rather than allow it to be analogue and flow.

 

[big soft moose]

theres also an interesting aryile on time vis a vis multiverse theory here - http://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

but its too late on a friday afternoon for me to wrap my head arround the detail

 

[jbw]

Here's a bit of scepticism for you and I have asked this of lot of people and on a number of forums where people who know about this sort of thing live and never got a convincing answer:

Why is time treated as a dimension and not just as a function of the finite speed of light? If time were just the rate of propagation of change it seems to solve a lot of the concerns about the arrow of time because it is simply impossible to undo change, trying to undo a change uses energy, creates more entropy and so actually creates more change.

This is my understanding of it - others with a more up to date degree in physics may correct me.
Newtons laws of gravity accurately describe the properties of gravity ( with a small error - so small in fact that most Space craft trajectory is calculated using Newtonian mechanics). However describing gravity accurately does not explain how gravity arises - it just the a property of the sum of two masses and the inverse square of their separation. Einstein tried to derive Newtons gravitational laws from something more fundamental than a pure description description. He found if you integrated the three dimensions of space (up or down, left or right, back or forward) with a fourth dimension he could not only derive Newtons Laws from scratch but also correct very small known errors in Newtons Laws. His maths also showed this fourth dimension was time and that the warping of space-time fabric by objects caused the effect we call gravity. It showed that straight lines drawn in space are curved by intense gravity fields. He also showed the rate of flow of time is distorted by intense gravitational fields. His theory generated a multitude of predictions all of which, however bizarre, have turned out to be true. His theory is said to be very robust ( as opposed to true) and no one as yet has come up with a convincing alternative.
Apologies for the simplifying of the explanation to those who are better briefed in General Relativity.
James

 

[sirch]

Many thanks @jbw, that's the best explanation I've seen