The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

  1. Me

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, May 29, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Me

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, May 29, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Me

    Savageduck Guest

    Perhaps, but that is the report, and today's reporters are known to be
    confused from time to time.
     
    Savageduck, May 29, 2013
  4. Me

    Trevor Guest

    And second, and third... to a real scientist anyway.
    (They are in short supply these days with funding often relying on vested
    outcomes :-(

    Unfortunately true, especially when it comes to big Pharma.

    And deliberately so when trying to mislead for vested interests.

    Right, but it's usually often to disprove something at least, than it is to
    ever prove anything for all possible conditions.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, May 29, 2013
  5. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Energy needs to be propergated, and it's still not the sound of the electricity flowing in the wires which is an important point.

    Yes but still not the sound of electicity in wires, these sounds depend on the weather. Perhaps the tone of the sound can be used to measure humidity, but it's not a relible way of measuring electricity.

    Obviosult if electricity made a sound audiophiles would need their cables encased in a vacuum otherwise the sound would escape from the wires. ;-)

    Yep, it's the comperssion of the air that causes the sounds/noises not the electricity.
    Thought that was down to inoisation.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 29, 2013
  6. Me

    J. Clarke Guest

    As in the published paper.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2013
  7. You've got it!
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 29, 2013
  8. Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
    conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
    those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
    thing?
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 29, 2013
  9. Me

    J. Clarke Guest

    Give us your example if you have one.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2013
  10. Me

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, May 29, 2013
  11. Me

    Alan Browne Guest

    All this has been covered already.
     
    Alan Browne, May 29, 2013
  12. Me

    Savageduck Guest

    It was a first for me. I guess that the wind borne dust (and it has
    been pretty windy out here lately) might have been ionized in some way.
    Add the drizzle to coat whatever PG&E equipment might have been
    vulnerable.
    Still it happened, and there is always the possibility the PG&E folks
    are speculating as to the cause of the outages.
     
    Savageduck, May 29, 2013
  13. Me

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's perfect. "It's a rare set of natural conditions. Those lines are
    _perfectly_ maintained," said, John T. Quiggly head of PR for the region.
     
    Alan Browne, May 30, 2013
  14. Chris Malcolm, May 30, 2013
  15. Me

    J. Clarke Guest

    J. Clarke, May 31, 2013
  16. Quite so, but that doesn't invalidate the general point about how
    assumptions and models affect the interpretation of experimental
    results, which is why this particular example has been discussed so
    much by historians and philosophers of science.
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 31, 2013
  17. Millikan, fudged experiments or not, was spectacularly right, and
    Ehrenhaft was wrong. It should be noted that "assumptions and models"
    has nothing to do with science, merely the history and sociology of the
    practice of science. Millikan's oil drop experiment has been replicated
    untold countless number of times. I've done it myself (gaack! 40 years
    ago) in Physics I. It was part of getting us to think about errors and
    how and when to ditch outliers. I can still remember the 'aha' of doing
    the oil drop thing. It was a spectacular. The world really comes in
    lumps.

    You will also note that I could not bring myself to use "philosophy" in
    the second sentence above. The Niaz article above was mostly a sales
    pitch for the currently fashionable TomKuhnery. How that ever gets
    classed as philosophy is beyond my comprehension.
     
    Elliott Roper, May 31, 2013
  18. Me

    J. Clarke Guest

    The sort of interpretation you are discussing lies in the domain of
    theoretical physics, not experimental. If you want to see a wonderful
    example of a good experimentalist acting as a totally embarassing
    theoretician, read "Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert V. Gentry.
     
    J. Clarke, May 31, 2013
  19.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 31, 2013
  20. Almost all data that was used to conclude "facts" that were
    later found to be not that way.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 31, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.