First the good news . . .

Discussion in 'Science' started by cerberus, Aug 30, 2018.

  1. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Astronomers capture the highest resolution image yet of a 'monster galaxy' 12 billion light years from Earth that creates new stars 1,000 times faster than the Milky Way"

    :banana: :cheerleader::chew::clapping: :w00t:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-new-stars-1-000-times-faster-Milky-Way.html

    Now the bad news . . .

    "Higgs Boson: Is the Higgs Boson DECAYING? Scientists make SHOCKING discovery"

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...s-shocking-discovery-scientists-new-discovery

    :shock: . . . [​IMG]

    And to believe there are those who actually believe this ****! :rolleyes:




     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2018
  2. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And ?

    Sounds like two interesting scientific discoveries (though, as usual, the tabloid coverage leaves much to be desired).

    It's interesting that the experimental evidence supports the standard model - that's the way the scientific method works.
     
    Jonsa and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NASA loves people like you, Don, because you help them spread the fake news.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2018
  4. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which do you assert is fake, that they've made the measurements, of their interpretation of the measurements ?

    In the cases in the OP, NASA has no involvement but I guess NASA is your shorthand for the entire scientific community.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's all fake, Don - it's meaningless chewing-gum for the brain. Bit like sport is?
     
  6. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's your assertion.

    I've spent enough time around research scientists to know that they are earnest people who are serious about their research and know that any attempt to fake results will be seized upon by rival researchers and they will be outed very swiftly. I'd tend to take their results at face value, especially if they've been subjected to peer review (there's nothing a scientist loves more than an opportunity to rubbish a rival's work).

    edited to add....

    Here's a link to the original paper in Nature:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0443-1
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2018
    Derideo_Te and Junkieturtle like this.
  7. UK_archer

    UK_archer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's an interesting read.

    Cerberus has gone his usual anti NASA rant as his 'instincts' are far more accurate than any experiment or scientist. If shown any proof it's either denied, claimed as fake or dismissed as 'why would anyone be interested'.

    The Higgs Boson news as usual is completely misunderstood, putting 'DECAYING' in capitals as if it means something terrible is about to happen is laughable.

    Neither Cerberus or the Express understand what decaying means in this context.

    As you said what's really interesting is that this follows the standard model and both Atlas and CMS are proving more and more useful
     
    Derideo_Te and Junkieturtle like this.
  8. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I wondered whether Daily Express readers would think that subatomic particles decay like teeth or old vegetables.
     
  9. UK_archer

    UK_archer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Just another clickbait headline grabber, see OP ;)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,017
    Likes Received:
    696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh no! Does that mean we're going to run out of Higg's Bosons?!?!? What will we do?
     
    Derideo_Te and UK_archer like this.
  11. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    8,391
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's from the Daily UK Mail, no further comment needed..
     
  12. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's OK, after Brexit we'll be in control of all our own subatomic particles instead of having to ship them all to CERN in Switzerland ;)
     
  13. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,017
    Likes Received:
    696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why the hell do you imagine would anybody bother lying about this kind of stuff?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. UK_archer

    UK_archer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's all a big conspiracy to funnel endless money, keeping these 'space scientists' in jobs for life don't you know
     
  16. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe so, but in which fields of research? Were any of them them in the field of cosmology? Or were none of them? Incidentally, the magazine Nature is one of the mouthpieces of NASA.
     
  17. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many and varied, as tends to happen when you keep in touch with your university friends and acquaintances, live in a city with two large universities and live in a part of that city where a lot of the academics live. Specifically with regard to cosmology, yes, some of them were in the field of cosmology (because astrophysics was part of my degree).

    What evidence do you have that Nature is a mouthpiece of NASA as opposed to an independent magazine publishing the results of scientific research on an unbiased basis ?
     
  18. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Er, because we live in the age of 'lying'? Or have you not noticed? NASA and it's international equivalents have become a non-productive global industry which provides lucrative salaries and life-long jobs simply for making up all kinds of nonsense for people like you to believe, and spending stupendous amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned cash building and launching rockets carrying probes/landers/explorers blah blah in the ongoing thirst for knowledge, which ongoing thirst provides all those lucrative non-productive jobs for life? See how it works? I'm not blaming them; on the contrary, I wish that I had a well-paid job with perks just for making up bizarre and preposterous stories about space, the final frontier!
     
  19. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I'm sure they told you all they wanted you to know (or believe?). Forget it, we're quite obviously not going to agree and I have other fish to fry.
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No we’re not, there is nothing special about this “age” regarding lying. We know there is lots of stuff out there – we can see some of it with the naked eye. Why would anyone make up bland lies about any of it when they could tell the bland truth – that’d be like a stockbroker lying on a date to say he’s an accountant. All the spin and dramatisation, that you object to while at the same time promote, would work in exactly the same way.
     
  21. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not saying the universe isn't there ffs! Jeezus! :wall: Read the link headline again and tell me it isn't aimed at 5-10-year olds?? Then tell me whether you believe it or not.
     
  22. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thing is, I'm not sure what you're so cross about. You asked me whether any of the academics I know are cosmologists and I responded honestly that they were. I presume you were hoping/expecting me to say no so that you could go "Aha! Cosmologists are different" or some such thing.

    I mix with scientific academics from a range disciplines on a regular basis and believe me, if they could catch a rival out they'd absolutely jump at the change. Whether it's challenging their experimental results (if they cannot be replicated), the conclusions drawn, or the underlying theories, academia is a very competitive environment. The idea that there's some kind of conspiracy where scientists from across the world join forces to hoodwink the public in order to keep the grant money flowing is laughable, if you know academics.
     
  23. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the headline is childish but the headline is provided by the rag of a newspaper, not the academics writing the paper.

    It's absolutely correct that media reporting of science is very poor (at best) and from rags like the Daily Mail and Daily Express it's far, far worse. That's because they are trying to titillate, shock, frighten, a readership with little or no knowledge of the subject. The problem lies with the gutter press and their so-called science correspondents who don't know anything about science.

    I think your problem should be with the Daily Mail and Daily Express (which is where the majority of the stories you quote seem to come from). If you read the original academic papers, they may be more difficult to understand but they would lack the purple prose that seems to be the object of your ire.
     
  24. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't know where I'm coming from by now, Don, you never will. Thanks for being so polite though.

    I don't know any academics, but I can spot charlatans a mile away, and know when they, or anyone else for that matter, are trying to fool me. But as I just said to HonestJoe - read the OP link again and deny that a) It's nauseatingly condescending, and b) Do you believe it?
     
  25. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the umpteenth time.

    If your problem is with the tone of the article in the OP then your beef should be with the rag in which it was published rather than the scientists who did the research. Of course it you've rooted our the original paper (as I did) and read it and have a problem with that, then that's another matter entirely.

    As regards, "do I believe it ?".

    I'm aware of the capabilities of the telescope that they've used to collect the readings. I have no reason to doubt that they have captured the data they have captured (because I know that telescope could do that and if they've faked the results a rival would have pointed that out during peer review). I'm literally not qualified to comment on the conclusions they have drawn but given the lack of uproar, it seems that they are considered reasonable.
     

Share This Page