The lab - for all things sciencey

[katie1997]

So has Alan restored the faith? (despite the 'paucity of enthusiasm for science' on this friendly, local forum)....And of course I wasn't teasing boffins. They're probably too busy doing boffin-type things to read this. Rosie was correct, I wasn't sneering.

Now "inspiring and full of hope; a celebration of the spirit of inquiry and the creativity of our fellow men". 10/10 if that was a deliberate wind-up.

New Scientist = the National Enquirer of Science Reporting. A science entertainment rag for the less-scientifically educated - or as Rosie pointed out, its a magazine. Less interested in accuracy than controversy.

Its often bought in the misguided impression that its a reliable source of scientific information. If you want scientific facts, read a journal. But hey, it has its place if you're after sensationalist cover stories, designed to sell and at the expense of good science.

Yes, science is exciting and for all, this doesn't mean it should be communicated irresponsibly. Which is what I was light-heartedly alluding to when I posted earlier on this thread.

[Huguenot]

It seems to me that describing New Scientist a 'celebration of the spirit of inquiry' rather than a dust dry academic tome is entirely in line with your own observations katienumbers? Are you setting up a straw man?

The criticisms that you level at it seem based on some kind of academic snobbery. What is wrong with a 'science entertainment rag for the less-scientifically educated'? The term 'rag' seems unnecessarily abusive.

The Editor decribes it as "an ideas magazine?that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories". It carries opinion as well as news.

I'm not sure why that merits such attacks on it.

It's the excitement and enthusiasm that this coverage generates that tempt people into science as careers. To expect a 14 year old schoolboy to read the Journal of High Energy Physics is crazy.

If you truly think science would be better off without New Scientist, I think you've lost perspective.

[Jeremy]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Installed a new shower head recently. Works fine.

> However about 2-3 minutes after turning it off

> there is a once off dribble of water like it's

> emptying itself. Why? Is it incontinent? Are these

> drops defying gravity for 2-3 minutes?

Not defying gravity... it's an atmospheric pressure thing. Same principle as a drinking staw full of water, with your finger over the end.

[maxxi]

Yes doc - pull your finger out...

[Siduhe]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Science joke of the day:

>

> And the barman says sorry we don't serve

> neutrinos. A neutrino walks into a bar.

My personal favourite:

An electron and a proton walk into a bar. The proton says, "you're round." "Are you sure?" replies the electron. And the proton says, "I'm positive".

[silverfox]

Ig Nobel prize awards

(annual awards that recognise research that ?cannot or should not be reproduced" The honours are given to science that ?first makes people laugh and then makes them think?)

Medicine Prize - shared by Dutch and Australian scientists - What happens to decision-making when you really, really need the loo? Scientific conclusion - people make better decisions about some things, and worse decisions about others. People who hold off the need to urinate are also better able to resist the temptation to spend money ? suggesting that avoiding the loo before a shopping trip might save you money.

Chemistry Prize - awarded to a Japanese team for their patented invention of an alarm that wakes people up by releasing a pungent wasabi spray.

Physiology Prize - awarded to an international team for an important paper published in Current Zoology entitled ?No evidence of contagious yawning in the red-footed tortoise, Geochelone carbonaria?.

Peace Prize - won by Arturas Zuokas, the Mayor of Vilnius, in Lithuania, for his innovative and wholly effective crackdown on illegal parking. Mayor Zuokas took to the wheel of a tank, and ran over offending luxury cars.

Biology Prize - Darrell Gwynne and David Rentz were honoured for their discovery that male buprestid beetles sometimes mistake beer bottles for females, and mate with them.

Physics Prize - awarded to a team led by Hernman Kingma, of Maastricht University, for determining why discus throwers get dizzy, while hammer throwers do not.

Psychology Prize - went to Karl Halvor Teigen, of the University of Oslo for research into understanding why people sigh.

Literature Prize - John Perry, of Stanford University in California, for developing a Theory of Structured Procrastination. It says: ?To be a high achiever, always work on something important, using it as a way to avoid doing something that?s even more important.?

21st First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony

Harvard University, September 29, 2011

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article3179644.ece

[Huguenot]

I was just wondering what silverfox would be doing on a science thread, a man for whom scientific enquiry is limited to 'I know what I like, and I like what I know'... ;-)

[silverfox]

Slightly unfair Huguenot, although you paraphrase me correctly.

Katienumbers was correct in the sense that I am one of those people who read New Scientist in the hope of making myself sound clever. Science for the people. I could never get my head around all those high-faluting mathematical formulae.

In fact, one of the reasons I hope that neutrinos do exceed the speed of light in a vacuum is that I can finally give up trying to understand Einstein's theory of relativity after 20 odd years of trying.

[katie1997]

*Fisk alert*

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It seems to me that describing New Scientist a

> 'celebration of the spirit of inquiry' rather than

> a dust dry academic tome is entirely in line with

> your own observations katienumbers? Are you

> setting up a straw man?

Huguenot on beating a subject to death shocker. You accusing someone else of setting up a straw man is actually quite amusing.

> The criticisms that you level at it seem based on

> some kind of academic snobbery. What is wrong with

> a 'science entertainment rag for the

> less-scientifically educated'? The term 'rag'

> seems unnecessarily abusive.

Yep, perhaps it did come across rather harshly. Nothing wrong with having a science entertainment magazine, used to read it and enjoy it myself. (Before it changed editors). Didn't read it for educational purposes.

> The Editor decribes it as "an ideas magazine?that

> means writing about hypotheses as well as

> theories". It carries opinion as well as news.

Dunno why you're quoting what the editor describes it as. They're hardly going to knock it. Yes my hypothesis is going to be published there anytime soon. Can't wait. Its that easy.

> I'm not sure why that merits such attacks on it.

As I said before, I don't like their irresponsible methods of reporting science. Its speculative nature lacks a solid empirical base. Can be very misleading but I have said all this before. Do you read posts before you comment on them I wonder.

> It's the excitement and enthusiasm that this

> coverage generates that tempt people into science

> as careers. To expect a 14 year old schoolboy to

> read the Journal of High Energy Physics is crazy.

Never said I expected a 14 year old BOY (not girl? hmmm) to read academic journals. Excitement and enthusiasm are great. Not sure its New Scientist that tempts people into science. But please feel free to spend your spare time proving me wrong/you right.

> If you truly think science would be better off

> without New Scientist, I think you've lost

> perspective.

I guess that anyone with a half-baked yet sensationalist, headline grabbing 'theory' (or as yet uinestablished hypothesis etc) has to have somewhere to go. Perhaps I have lost perspective Huguenot, and I don't know why you're taking this so personally (oh wait...) hopefully it will give people with enough interest in any given subject to go on and read more factual information that's all. You can spend as much time as you like putting words in my mouth, you can bang on about how wonderful it is etc. Fine, your opinion. Not mine. Blah blah ad nauseum....

[Huguenot]

As I said, quite disproportionate. Whilst they do like to create excitement around a subject, to call it the National Enquirer is pure unnecessary hyperbole.

As is the bollocks about it being 'that easy'. You made that up too. If you can get one of your 'hypotheses' published I'll glady send you a crisp fiver for proving me wrong.

So why are you so obsessive about this that you make stuff up to abuse it with? What made it so personal for you?

[Huguenot]

Sorry I didn't answer your question - why am I defending it?

I would have thought that was obvious for someone as clever as you - it's because I read it, enjoy it, and look forward to receiving it.

I'm disappointed that someone would wish to take away that fun just for the sake of snide superior posturing.

[katie1997]

I never said I was clever. I'm not being snidey, superior and posturing. I'm getting a little tired of having to explain myself, I'm obviously not doing it too well.

So please for the love of god, or someone, please enjoy your read. Please accept my apologies for making you feel disappointed that someone would wish to take away that fun. I don't.

Its sunny over here today. Birds are singing. Lovely.

[Alan Medic]

Another 73 gone to waste.

[maxxi]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Another 73 gone to waste.

Unless you apply the 'interior-argumentative' equation of lost opportunity (as you should have done in your own recent example of x+y=z)

In which case (with the thread represented (as usual) as x, the 73 as q(i) and the argument as y, the 73 opportunity missed as z and taken as z(i) and available as q) then surely x+y-z=q and x+q+q(i)=z(i) (naturally reversing the application of the nth power if it is a 37 and not a natural 73 and bearing in mind that fractal curves will appear if this is tried on a complex 73 - 373, 733, etc. and which, whilst pretty, would invaildate the solution).

With this in mind and subtracting the post z(i) groan/frustration (also known as the "Look, look!!" post or q+y=0) the answer is still: 73

[Alan Medic]

Have you read the rules maxxi? It has gone to waste. This isn't a maths thread btw. katie numbers..........of all people!

[mockney piers]

Douglas adams missed a trick there maxxi

[maxxi]

Mathematics is "the Queen of Sciences" doc.

btw - Stephen Hawking has his own 73 -

We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made out of antiparticles. However, if you meet your antiself, don't shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash of light. 'quote #73 from A Brief History Of Time'

- which kinda nixes the anti-73 theory I've been working on...

[mockney piers]

Was this what you were after maxxi?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

[maxxi]

(tu)

[silverfox]

Sorry Maxxi, but I cannot understand the thumbs up. It is a cheap cartoon and you are showing your ignorance by endorsing it.

Yes, there is a purity in mathematics up to a certain level. After which it becomes so theeoretical as to verge on pure theory - ie no more reliable than pure belief, religion, theology.

If you have to postulate 11 dimensions in order to explain the possibilbily of multiple universes you have a serious problem.

The theory may be correct, but as nobody can test it it cannot be a science.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you understood the cartoon silverfox. The whole idea is that 'applied' sciences are to the left, and 'pure' theoretical sciences are too the right.

The cartoon is making a joke that mathematics is so theoretical, so 'pure' that it's out of sight of the other sciences.

That's the joke.

[mockney piers]

I was just going to say *wooosh*.

[maxxi]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Maxxi, but I cannot understand the thumbs

> up. It is a cheap cartoon and you are showing your

> ignorance by endorsing it.

>

> Yes, there is a purity in mathematics up to a

> certain level. After which it becomes so

> theeoretical as to verge on pure theory - ie no

> more reliable than pure belief, religion,

> theology.

>

> If you have to postulate 11 dimensions in order to

> explain the possibilbily of multiple universes you

> have a serious problem.

>

> The theory may be correct, but as nobody can test

> it it cannot be a science.

v^2/2 + P/p + g*h ............. (or whoosh to you).

(tu)(tu)(tu)

[Moos]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have to postulate 11 dimensions in order to

> explain the possibilbily of multiple universes you

> have a serious problem.

I think the difficulty may simply be that you don't understand, so you think it must be nonsense.

[HAL9000]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have to postulate 11 dimensions in order to

> explain the [possibility] of multiple universes you

> have a serious problem.

A problem you appear to have created by conflating two or more unrelated hypotheses.

11 dimensions = M-Theory (an amalgam of five types of string theory) that postulates 10^500 possible "landscapes".

Multiple universes = many-worlds and several other theories, none of which postulate how many dimensions there may be.