Sunday, October 2, 2011

ZenTiger Is the science really settled?

Whilst weather warmists declare the science is settled, the science of e=mc2 is just a teeny bit unsettled until science can do a bit more cross checking. There is always more to learn, and that is what should keep us humble.

So whilst I take AGW with a grain of carbon dioxide, I remain convinced that it's not the science of AGW we need to worry about, it's the political response to it. It's common sense to act in a sustainable manner, so I'm not averse to looking after the environment, but it seems to me that the AGW gig is attracting dangerous utopian solutions and fraudulent opportunists alike, each with agenda far removed from pragmatic action let alone a science-based quest for truth and understanding.

Another thing that keeps me humble is the thought that science doesn't answer every question we are capable of asking, and it doesn't solve every problem we have the capacity for experiencing.

Still, all this talk of tachyons, dark matter and speedy neutrinos makes Star Trek episodes all the more interesting, since that's where I've learned at least 10% of my physics from (there's comics, countless science (fiction) books and other similar scientific journals that round out my education, so back off). Just one question then about the CERN to INFN lab result - is the experiment repeatable?

Actually, there's lots more questions. I noticed a commentator suggested that if the distance measurements were out by just 30 feet, then the whole idea might fizzle. That made me wonder that if the very fabric of space/time was behaving slightly differently than we expected, would the movement of the planet also have a bearing on the experiment?

I'm not a physicist (obviously) and I realise that the experiment is happening on the same planet, therefore planetary motion probably not relevant, but still, given the quirks of quarks and all that, maybe there's some kind of impact when working with these kinds of particles at those kinds of speeds?

And getting more generalised - what about the problem of sending things back in time - why does that always work in the movies, because wasn't the planet and the galaxy somewhere completely different millions of years ago? Why would a time shift automatically mean we auto-locate a moving planet in an expanding universe? Any thoughts appreciated...especially the more ridiculous and outrageous ones.

2 comment(s):

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Be careful what you wish for. You might get Muldoon back.

ZenTiger said...

I thought he was quite good in Rocky Horror.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.