If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post UK)   Yeah, about that whole 'holy grail' of physics thingy that was deemed worthy of a Nobel Prize. Well now a physicist working at CERN has his doubts about cosmic inflation   (huffingtonpost.co.uk) divider line 40
    More: Interesting, cosmic inflation, flaw, Nobel Prize, Planck, cosmic microwave backgrounds, Carina Nebula, rings of Saturn, direct evidence  
•       •       •

2396 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 May 2014 at 4:13 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-14 02:19:41 PM
FTFA:   "just gossip at this stage, mind -- that there may be a problem with the discovery of the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation."

Spectacular find, subby.

That being said: this is what makes "science" science: it has to survive the grind of very smart people trying to systematically reconstruct and/or deconstruct the ideas and findings.
 
2014-05-14 03:19:24 PM
I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.
 
2014-05-14 03:30:57 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.


Turn off the lights as you leave the lab.
 
2014-05-14 03:36:03 PM

2wolves: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Turn off the lights as you leave the lab.


That's good because my perpetual motion machine only works in the dark and on that specific bench.
 
2014-05-14 03:43:55 PM
Good. It's the ones without doubts that are a problem.
 
2014-05-14 03:46:15 PM
Cosmic inflation? Time to poke black holes in that theory
 
2014-05-14 03:49:19 PM
So cosmic inflation is grail shaped?
 
2014-05-14 04:16:16 PM
Anti-science!
 
2014-05-14 04:21:54 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.


Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.
 
2014-05-14 04:23:13 PM
I, for one, don't believe in cosmic inflation.  It's all a hoax invented by some scientists trying to push their own radical left-wing agenda so they can get their hands on more FUNDING.  This just PROVES it!  Follow the MONEY people!!!
 
2014-05-14 04:23:38 PM
The science is settled, cosmic inflation is real.
 
2014-05-14 04:29:10 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


It's a single paper without confirmation and you're equating that with decades of repeated studies?

On the one hand you have a bridge builder who has built one spectacular bridge that's only 2 days old. And on the other hand you have another bridge builder who has been building solid bridges for 30 years. Somebody comes along and says, "Hey, that new guys bridge may not be the best thing ever." and your conclusion is that the old guy must build shiatty bridges too.
 
2014-05-14 04:29:14 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


Scientists don't, just the public and the politicians.  Scientists just keep doing their sciency thing.  Topics like this don't fall on the general public's radar and don't hurt politicians money train influence political policies, so science can do exactly what it's supposed to do.
 
2014-05-14 04:44:40 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


Which, of course, has been done, repeatedly.

The part that you are leaving out is that the person trying to poke holes in the BICEP2 data is actually qualified to do so. Far too many people disputing the climatological consensus think that their ability to post a graph qualifies them to have a say on the science. It's a bit like if my mechanic wanted me to give his opinion about the viability of ekpyrotic cosmological models any weight.

Any damned fool can shout, "Ain't so!"
 
2014-05-14 04:58:46 PM
Look, it's obvious that things are costing more and more and I don't see anything funny about it!
 
2014-05-14 05:32:12 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.


Except for climate change. That science is settled.
 
2014-05-14 05:45:02 PM

MyRandomName: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Except for climate change. That science is settled.


You'll have to try harder than that. That particular piece of crap was already tried and explained why it's bunk earlier in the thread.
 
2014-05-14 05:57:28 PM
ampoliros:

It's a single paper without confirmation and you're equating that with decades of repeated studies?

On the one hand you have a bridge builder who has built one spectacular bridge that's only 2 days old. And on the other hand you have another bridge builder who has been building solid bridges for 30 years. Somebody comes along and says, "Hey, that new guys bridge may not be the best thing ever." and your conclusion is that the old guy must build shiatty bridges too.


This is the view that I am glad most scientists  don'ttake. Every minor to major rethink, overhaul or revision in scientific history has in one form or fashion has flew in the face of "decades of repeated studies". At the turn of the 20th century many of the greatest scientists, especially physicists, thought there were only a couple of details left to work out and all the heavy lifting was done.  Unfortunately you are starting to see the attitude become prevalent again in some circles.

There is a big difference in knowing things and thinking you know things. Whether the idea in the article gains traction or not I'm glad somebody is out there at least revisiting what is thought to be settled. And, no I'm not talking about climate, it doesn't take a scientist to look at a thermometer a couple of times are over several years to know whether or not it is getting warmer outside.
 
2014-05-14 06:05:16 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.


*Twitch*

Bob the angry flower is going to beat you senseless one of these days.
 
2014-05-14 07:02:31 PM

Apeboy: ampoliros:

It's a single paper without confirmation and you're equating that with decades of repeated studies?

On the one hand you have a bridge builder who has built one spectacular bridge that's only 2 days old. And on the other hand you have another bridge builder who has been building solid bridges for 30 years. Somebody comes along and says, "Hey, that new guys bridge may not be the best thing ever." and your conclusion is that the old guy must build shiatty bridges too.

This is the view that I am glad most scientists  don'ttake. Every minor to major rethink, overhaul or revision in scientific history has in one form or fashion has flew in the face of "decades of repeated studies". At the turn of the 20th century many of the greatest scientists, especially physicists, thought there were only a couple of details left to work out and all the heavy lifting was done.  Unfortunately you are starting to see the attitude become prevalent again in some circles.

There is a big difference in knowing things and thinking you know things. Whether the idea in the article gains traction or not I'm glad somebody is out there at least revisiting what is thought to be settled. And, no I'm not talking about climate, it doesn't take a scientist to look at a thermometer a couple of times are over several years to know whether or not it is getting warmer outside.


Analogies are generally terrible but I enjoy them. I think the point I was getting at was that in science, accepted ideas are only legitimately challenged when new work doesn't agree with the old.
 
2014-05-14 07:05:53 PM

washington-babylon: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

*Twitch*

Bob the angry flower is going to beat you senseless one of these days.


Er, since I'm not speaking figuratively, I would presume that I'm speaking literally. I guess that you're objection is that I'm using a figure of speech to indicate the action, but that's not the part that I'm referring to with the literal, so I'll deduct a half-stay for some muddled clarity.

Besides which, Bob's more about death rays and weird science. Beating someone senseless isn't his usual style. He'd be more likely to put me into a quantum superposition, don't you think?
 
2014-05-14 07:18:41 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


Oh FFS, you mong.
 
2014-05-14 07:23:36 PM
This is another good reason why people should wait until their paper is accepted for publication before issuing a press release.  Remember that preliminary result of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light (they have mass, so it should be impossible).  Do you remember when it was discovered to be a mistake in the experimental setup?

Yeah, so until the paper comes out, let's just wait and see.
 
2014-05-14 07:30:09 PM
As science is not a religion, there are no "Holy Grails".

Subby, you should feel bad.  That was horrible.
 
2014-05-14 07:52:38 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


It's almost as if people have been doing exactly that since the 1970s and the data, as read by people who actually know what they're talking about, continue to support the premise.

Maybe we should be trying to tear down heliocentrism and gravity while we're at it; I mean, what the hell do we know, right?
 
2014-05-14 07:53:07 PM
Blogger Claims ...

*click*
 
2014-05-14 08:01:16 PM
Why is inflation so hard to grasp? Of course it expanded faster than the speed of light until gravity could separate itself from the other forces due to cooling. Speed limits can't exist when there is no gravity. This is like background cherenkov radiation.
 
2014-05-14 08:25:58 PM
Some 'Splainin' To Do: Any damned fool can shout, "Ain't so!"

But it takes a certain kind of dude to reply "But it do."
 
2014-05-14 08:53:33 PM
Subby should read the article more closely.

The article says that a physicist (might) have doubts about one highly public observation of Inflation.

Having doubts about an experiment which allegedly verifies a theory is not at all the same as doubting the theory itself.  There is lots of other evidence for Inflation anyway.

For example, if you perform an experiment in your basement which claims to verify General Relativity by creating a black hole with nothing but some spare bicycle parts, I will probably doubt your experimental methods.  But this does not mean that I doubt the validity of General Relativity.
 
2014-05-14 09:33:57 PM

ampoliros: Smeggy Smurf: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I would be far more concerned if there wasn't anyone trying to poke holes in the result. This is science being science. It's, literally, how it normally works.

Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.

It's a single paper without confirmation and you're equating that with decades of repeated studies?

On the one hand you have a bridge builder who has built one spectacular bridge that's only 2 days old. And on the other hand you have another bridge builder who has been building solid bridges for 30 years. Somebody comes along and says, "Hey, that new guys bridge may not be the best thing ever." and your conclusion is that the old guy must build shiatty bridges too.


He's an architect. He may not understand engineering metaphors.
 
2014-05-14 09:34:01 PM

Apeboy: history has in one form or fashion has flew in the face of "decades of repeated studies". At the turn of the 20th century many of the greatest scientists, especially physicists, thought there were only a couple of details left to work out and all the heavy lifting was done. Unfortunately you are starting to see the attitude become prevalent again in some circles.

There is a big difference in knowing things and thinking you know things. Whether the idea in the article gains traction or not I'm glad somebody is out there at least revisiting what is thought to be settled. And, no I'm not talking about climate, it doesn't take a scientist to look at a thermometer a couple of times are over several years to know whether or not it is getting warmer outside.


Yes, but to act "Oh well we don't know EVERYTHING so we'd better not take action on what the science currently said" IS what a lot of people shouting about how climate change is fake are *doing*
it's not farking *Scientists* suggestingthere's some sort of scientific conspiracy out there, now is there?

It'd be like claiming "WE SHOULDN'T MAKE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS FOR GPS! Science isn't settled yet! Relativity and quantum mechanics dont' play well together! THEREFORE IT'S BUNK."
 
2014-05-14 09:51:07 PM
Well... this particular branch of astrophysics is only  kinda science at the moment, it's some speculation (albeit very educated speculation) plus a couple of potentially proof-of-concept data points.

It's not on par with things like relativistic corrections mentioned above, where we've worked out a dozen ways to falsify it and have a pretty broad data set verifying that what we're basing the math around is a real thing.

As an aside: the larger problem with explaining to stupid people why some science is 'basically 100% definitely true' and some science is in 'hey, that's a cool idea, but don't hold your breath' territory is that how definite a fact is doesn't necessarily map to how potentially profitable an idea is (and thus how much media coverage it gets), and that while the difference is incredibly easy for anyone but a moron to see it does involve the ability to do basic college-level arithmetic (aka statistics 1).  A lot of the really stupid people protesting shiat like climate change and evolution are still having issues with the grade school 1+1=2 math.  Essentially, they don't have the vocabulary to even have the discussion, it's a bit like trying to explain why Shakespeare is more important to English literature than Stephanie Meyer to someone that has no familiarity with English grammar or syntax and thus can't read either, much less analyze them.
 
2014-05-14 10:02:17 PM
No, Subby.  "This doesn't prove it" and  "This disproves it" are NOT equivalent statements in science.
 
2014-05-14 10:36:40 PM

cretinbob: Good. It's the ones without doubts that are a problem.


Yeah. All those respected and published scientists without doubts. They're so common and plentiful that there's no reason to bother naming one.
 
2014-05-14 11:58:44 PM
This shiat tried to do the same thing as the global warmists: Collect data from the noise by applying a mask.

Masked noise is still noise.
 
2014-05-15 12:10:35 AM
HAW HAW!  Science wrong again!
Proof that Jesus is right.
 
2014-05-15 02:01:58 AM
But now a blogger ('Résonaances') and physicist working at CERN, Adam Falkowski, reports that a fundamental methodological problem might through the findings into doubt.

I stopped reading right there.
 
2014-05-15 02:27:29 AM

prjindigo: This shiat tried to do the same thing as the global warmists: Collect data from the noise by applying a mask.
Masked noise is still noise.


Let me take off my noise cancelling headphones and stop watching this stabilized video while I think about some easy examples of why you're wrong.

Here's some light reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution

But yea, global warmists are totes, like, duh.
 
2014-05-15 09:39:49 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Too bad that when the same logic is applied to global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days everybody loses their minds.


*shakes fist*

This could have somehow become a KSP thread, because astrophysics, but you turned it into an AGW thread. :(
 
2014-05-15 06:46:58 PM

Amper: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Any damned fool can shout, "Ain't so!"

But it takes a certain kind of dude to reply "But it do."


I'm not of the opinion that shallow arguments require deep replies.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report