Slashdot Mirror

I wasn't referring to Obama's Nobel. Where is your reading comprehension? I was referring to his Secretary of Energy - Steven Chu. He received it in physics, which is hardly the type of prize that gets awarded for politics, and he (with two others) received it for serious discoveries in how to trap and cool atoms into exotic states of matter; with freakin' lasers, no less.

With one swipe you threw into trash many hard working and devoted professionals and years of research, studies and trials.

There are doctors and there are doctors - like in any other profession involving humans, despite of drawbacks, problems and botched surgeries there are much more cases of saved lives and utter devotion to helping people, and since you heard about the bad cases it means that check and balances work (not perfectly, but still).

Progress in medicine is outstanding, true, not all conditions are well understood, but more and more are, there are plenty of truly saving lives discoveries - let's be honest here - how many scientific articles have you read last week devoted to medicine? My guess is none, I guess you have not even read about the last year Nobel, where a revolutionary treatment for deadly skin cancer was awarded "for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation".

There are plenty of just recently discovered life savings treatments, HIV is not a death sentence anymore, cancer on many occasions is treatable (e.g. CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy), transplant surgeries save lives, artificial parts (including heart) save lives, universal vaccines for whole groups of viruses are on the horizon.

Lastly, it's the XXI century, we have Internet and Google, all what's needed is a willingness to read to have an informed opinion vs just an opinion.

Re: "Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean you can just make up stuff. You're not even specific about the stuff you make up, it's just hand waving.

You're not framing the issue correctly. The theoretical distance between a Big Bang and lots of mini-bangs is not actually that big. All that we are doing here is removing claims about the beginning of the universe, and then postulating that matter is recycled in the most violent areas of the galaxy which we witness - the active galactic nuclei. If you are fine with a Big Bang, then lots of mini-bangs should not induce any trauma. There is a sense that you are trying a little bit too hard to resist in the light of the proposed change here.

However, the really important part here is to completely forget trying to deduce from principles the behavior of the AGN as black hole theorists have tried to do. If you actually read Eric Lerner's explanation of how the plasma focus works, the lesson you should be taking away from that is that we cannot simply deduce the behaviors of plasmas. A century of research in plasma physics has produced this single lesson as the most important lesson of our laboratory investigations: plasmas behave in unexpected manners. You can try to deploy the most sophisticated mathematics towards understanding them, but you will still fail. Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven warned about this very problem repeatedly, but the astrophysical community refused to listen - even when he lectured them about it in his 1970 Nobel lecture.

This may come as a surprise, but theorists "make stuff up" all of the time. Sometimes - gasp! - they even postulate ideas which are not consistent with the existing scientific framework (omg!). Really though: it's their job. Sometimes, new physics can come from unexpected places. There is nothing actually extraordinary from inferring new physics principles from a study of peculiar galaxies; it's actually a pretty clever approach which we should not rule out, since these are the edge cases - and our models must accommodate all known cases.

Re: "There is no way that your magical new quasar physics suddenly changes the results of some of the most precise physical measurements we have ever made."

It's not a very strong point at all because you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison here between the end state (a system which has fully stabilized) and the initial state (which happens to be one of the most energetic regions we can see in the universe). The nature of that initial state will depend very heavily upon what process created it (in this case a proposed "matter recycling" event). Can you really make sweeping claims that the initial state must adhere to the properties of the end state? I think your hyper-focus on forming rebuttals is distracting you from more deeply engaging these issues. Halton Arp, Eric Lerner and Wal Thornhill are clearly engaging this issue at a level above what you are doing here.

Re: "But all that is irrelevant because even *if* a variable electron would cause an intrinsic redshift at the source of emitted light, that still would not explain why the absorption lines of interstellar neutral hydrogen between the quasar and us, is *also* redshifted in a way that goes from zero to the quasar's redshift (i.e. in-between values)."

I've already dealt with this topic in another thread. It turns out that the astronomers whose work has been challenged by Arp are just as zealous as the Big Bang's online defenders. Not a huge surprise there that people would selectively report on observations in order to reach their preferred conclusions.

Arp makes a very important point in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies that a null absorption line result may go unannounce

Yes, and the fact that it's the Norwegian parliament that awards the Peace Prize is specifically laid out by Nobel in his will.

And peace wasn't laid out in his will. It was added later.

Bzzt, wrong answer. "On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."

"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," according to the Nobel folks.

Other Obama achievements that you might not be familiar with:

• Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics.
• Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.
• Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.
• The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.
• Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
• Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

This is much more of a problem for physics than other fields. While there are physics papers with massive numbers of authors, even in biology one won't see more than about 30 authors. And in math it is rare for a paper to have more than 3 or 4 authors- so the equivalent award there, the Fields Medal, is completely reasonable. In some of the physical sciences such as physics one has these very large author lists, and it isn't always completely clear how much actual work was done by some of the people on the collaborations; astronomy seems to be in a similar situation (but since astronomy doesn't have its own famous award, it doesn't come up in this context).

Note also that Nobel's original will did not have the restriction to 3 people, although it actually had an intent of it going to a single person https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html, so if we're going to allow it to go to multiple, why stop at 3? On the other hand, it seems that people understand that when someone like the director of LIGO gets the prize that they are functionally getting it for the project as a whole.

This is the perfect tomato for human health. This research extends to tomatoes the same concept Norman Borlaug used to optimize the production of wheat and rice in the 60s. You know, the Green Revolution that legitimately kept the world from starving itself to death and decreased warfare. There are major health benefits from consuming tomatoes in any form, and this research increases production and descreases costs in a way that will increase tomato availability.

Challenge accepted. In the last 10 years:
-Malala Yousafzai is a nobel peace prize winner and she is from pakistan. https://www.nobelprize.org/nob...
-Aziz Sancar was born and educated in turkey (difficult to tell whether he is of muslim faith or not, but he was probably at least raised in that culture) and is a chemistry nobel prize recipient.
-Maryam Mirzakhani was born and educated (up to bachelor) in Iran and received a Fields medal.

What Gore actually said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Could happen in as little as 7 years is not will happen in 7 years. Also, 2007 + 7 is not 2013. But please, keep insisting the people warning about global warming are the ones being inaccurate.

You had it right up to the part about engineering.

Starting in the 18th century, the liberal arts expanded to include the sciences.

Take a look at the Nobel prize web site. A lot of the laureates started out in the liberal arts.

https://www.nobelprize.org/nob...

"for their discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system"

Eric Kandel was born in Vienna, Austria, where he lived until his family emigrated to New York in 1939 to escape the Nazi regime. He studied history and literature at Harvard University, before becoming interested in psychoanalysis, learning and memory. At New York University medical school he turned to the biological basis of the mind

They call it "neuroscience" because people have figured out that psychology is bunk and the charlatans need a new name for their unsubstantiated hypthoses of how humans work.

That's not exactly fair: psychology is a broad discipline (not all of it is as you describe) and neuroscience is not a new name for psychology (although that may not be what you meant, I can also read your comment as meaning that charlatans attach themselves to neuroscience).

The obvious branch of psychology that is hard science is experimental psychology. Although I've never met anyone who describes themselves as such, there are still departments of experimental psychology.

The bulk of what neuroscience does is try to reveal how brains operate and how they are constructed or how they've evolved. Since we need to be very concrete in what we mean by "operate", much research in neuroscience ends up pretty far removed from what many lay people would consider informative in how humans work." As in "what it means to be human/conscious." For instance, neuroscientist Eric Kandel got the Nobel prize in 2000 for his work on the molecular aspects of simple learning in the sea slug, and in 2004 Richard Axel and Linda Buck got the prize for discovering how expression of olfactory receptor genes is organised in olfactory receptor neurons. This made clear how the olfactory receptor neurons are wired to their post-synaptic partner cells. All pretty low-level stuff.

They call it "neuroscience" because people have figured out that psychology is bunk and the charlatans need a new name for their unsubstantiated hypthoses of how humans work.

That's not exactly fair: psychology is a broad discipline (not all of it is as you describe) and neuroscience is not a new name for psychology (although that may not be what you meant, I can also read your comment as meaning that charlatans attach themselves to neuroscience).

The obvious branch of psychology that is hard science is experimental psychology. Although I've never met anyone who describes themselves as such, there are still departments of experimental psychology.

The bulk of what neuroscience does is try to reveal how brains operate and how they are constructed or how they've evolved. Since we need to be very concrete in what we mean by "operate", much research in neuroscience ends up pretty far removed from what many lay people would consider informative in how humans work." As in "what it means to be human/conscious." For instance, neuroscientist Eric Kandel got the Nobel prize in 2000 for his work on the molecular aspects of simple learning in the sea slug, and in 2004 Richard Axel and Linda Buck got the prize for discovering how expression of olfactory receptor genes is organised in olfactory receptor neurons. This made clear how the olfactory receptor neurons are wired to their post-synaptic partner cells. All pretty low-level stuff.

They call it "neuroscience" because people have figured out that psychology is bunk and the charlatans need a new name for their unsubstantiated hypthoses of how humans work.

That's not exactly fair: psychology is a broad discipline (not all of it is as you describe) and neuroscience is not a new name for psychology (although that may not be what you meant, I can also read your comment as meaning that charlatans attach themselves to neuroscience).

The obvious branch of psychology that is hard science is experimental psychology. Although I've never met anyone who describes themselves as such, there are still departments of experimental psychology.

The bulk of what neuroscience does is try to reveal how brains operate and how they are constructed or how they've evolved. Since we need to be very concrete in what we mean by "operate", much research in neuroscience ends up pretty far removed from what many lay people would consider informative in how humans work." As in "what it means to be human/conscious." For instance, neuroscientist Eric Kandel got the Nobel prize in 2000 for his work on the molecular aspects of simple learning in the sea slug, and in 2004 Richard Axel and Linda Buck got the prize for discovering how expression of olfactory receptor genes is organised in olfactory receptor neurons. This made clear how the olfactory receptor neurons are wired to their post-synaptic partner cells. All pretty low-level stuff.

It's formally called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, but don't let that deter from the fact it's part of the same ceremony and is a pretty big deal among economists.

It's even closer than you point out.

The bank donated the money to the Nobel Foundation in 1968. It is, technically speaking, a Nobel Prize. It only has their name tacked-on because of the plus-up to the Nobel Foundation –who decide independently on each year's awardee.

It's formally called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, but don't let that deter from the fact it's part of the same ceremony and is a pretty big deal among economists.

It is disappointing to see the high energy physicists continue to dominate the nobel prize. Since the 1930s, anyone who discovers some new quirk about some fundamental particle gets the prize.

I'm not sure what you mean by dominate but a significant share of prizes awarded in the last fifteen years were for physics with clear practical applications, including LEDs (2014), graphene (2010), fiber optics and CCDs (2009), giant magnetoresistance (2007), laser spectroscopy (2005), and the integrated circuit (2000). The 2003 prize was given for "contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids". Other years the prizes was awarded for astrophysics: 2011, 2006 and 2002. The other prizes appear to be for quantum physics, but not all of them deal with LHC-type of high energy physics.

the fact that it is explicitly mentioned in the citation for the prize is just anecdotal evidence not data

I can't tell, is this a parody troll or not? Here is the exact citation, from the source:

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi mura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Youyou Tu "for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria"

How can this be made any clearer? Let me guess, this is going to be another one of those threads where a legion of idiots who don't realize that the Peace Prize is selected and awarded by an entirely different institution using different criteria make irrelevant comments about Obama's prize.

You might appreciate the press release directly from the Nobel Prize committee. Unlike other press releases, it actually goes into detail, and gives good background on the topic of the prize. (Though I don't know if the nobelprize.org domain sets cookies or not - I don't think they *require* them, though.)

Perhaps we should be happy that global economic growth is allowing hundreds of thousands of new biologists to study the science?

As Julian Simone noted, the ultimate resource is not something like oil, or copper, or water, but instead the ultimate resource is the power of the human mind - and the more human minds that we can bring online to solving problems, the better off the world will be.

Anyway there is plenty of science in the US. In 2013, two Americans and one America-based scientist won the nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine (James E. Rothman, Randy W. Schekman, and Thomas C. Sudhof or Yale, Berkeley, and Stanford) for their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic.

There isn't a Nobel prize in Economics though, even if that is what the article says. It is the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences as Alfred Nobel did not set it up.

Yes, it's technically correct, though I get tired of hearing this brought up all the time, as if it's some sort of weird conspiracy theory to make it sound like there's a "Nobel Prize" when there isn't one.

Look -- the Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation. They use the same administrative mechanisms and process for choosing the economics prize, the same academic body (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) makes the selections as most other prizes, they give the same award money, and they give the award at the same ceremony.

The difference is that the other prizes were created by Nobel himself, while the economics prize was later endowed by contributions to the Nobel Foundation, who agreed to administer the prize under the same criteria.

So yes, while Nobel himself didn't set it up, the fact is that the only body that matters NOW is who awards the prize, that that foundation (which actually OWNS and administers things called "Nobel Prizes") has decided to award a prize in economics too, which it basically treats in every way EXACTLY THE SAME as the other prizes.

This strikes me like someone claiming that the Harvard Medical School or the Harvard Business School aren't REALLY "Harvard" schools, because John Harvard didn't explicitly will money to create schools of medicine or business or whatever back in the 1630s... he just wanted to create a college, and it was mostly a kind of seminary in the early days. So, you may think you are a Harvard Medical School grad -- but it's not REALLY "Harvard."

There IS a bit of a difference here because the Nobel Foundation itself tries to keep a subtle distinction in the naming of the prizes, probably due to legal constraints about how the will was worded exactly. But acting like there's some big difference and it's not "really a Nobel Prize" is ridiculous -- it's just a historical and semantic distinction, not one that actually means anything in terms of how the prize is administered, selected, or awarded. And that's probably why the media usually makes little distinction, because in all ways that ACTUALLY MATTER, there isn't one.

(And by the way, usually this argument tends to come up from people who want to claim economics isn't a "real science" or something. I won't get into that argument, but well, neither is "peace" or "literature.")

The ability to image the atomic structure of an individual (fragile and 3-d) protein is still notable and the article gets this mostly right.
But, yes: the 1986 Nobel prize went to developers of the TEM and STM that had both already achieved atomic resolution MANY years before. The first microscope to allow atomic resolution was the field ion microscope (in the 1950s!), but the inventor had died before the Nobel prizes were awarded.

The "Nobel prize of computing"? Jeez, has the author been in a space capsule traveling back from Mars for the past decade? The Nobel prize isn't what it used to be

Confusingly, the Nobel Prize Web site speaks both of "the Nobel prize" and "the Nobel prizes". The latter is a better phrase, as there isn't a single "Nobel Prize", there are Nobel prizes in a number of different fields.

- if it ever was in the first place. It's a damaged, discredited brand, like Paula Deen, Best Buy, or "hands up don't shoot". I'd avoid using the phrase in the future.

I've not heard that, say, the Nobel Prizes in scientific fields are particularly damaged and discredited; what have you heard to indicate that, if anything? If we're talking about a technical field, "Nobel Prize in..." would presumably liken a given prize to the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine, rather than to the Prizes in literature or peace (or "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel").

The "Nobel prize of computing"? Jeez, has the author been in a space capsule traveling back from Mars for the past decade? The Nobel prize isn't what it used to be

Confusingly, the Nobel Prize Web site speaks both of "the Nobel prize" and "the Nobel prizes". The latter is a better phrase, as there isn't a single "Nobel Prize", there are Nobel prizes in a number of different fields.

- if it ever was in the first place. It's a damaged, discredited brand, like Paula Deen, Best Buy, or "hands up don't shoot". I'd avoid using the phrase in the future.

I've not heard that, say, the Nobel Prizes in scientific fields are particularly damaged and discredited; what have you heard to indicate that, if anything? If we're talking about a technical field, "Nobel Prize in..." would presumably liken a given prize to the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine, rather than to the Prizes in literature or peace (or "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel").

Well, it wouldn't be the only hole in Relativity, but it would be a huge hole in Relativity. Which otherwise describes the observed Universe very, very well. It's not the best-tested theory in science; that probably goes to QED. Plus then you have to account for observations of massive stellar objects spiraling towards each other, which lose energy more-or-less as predicted by GR. See also the 1993 Nobel. New Physics is always fun, but I'm afraid that a null result would be better explained as experimental design flaws. You know, the way that every other similar experiment to date has been explained. The parallels with aether measurements are hard to avoid, but the alternative theories of gravity are, well...insufficiently predictive. Also aether was more of an assumption than a theory per se: there was never any evidence for it. Contrast with Relativity, which is undeniably a true description of reality.

All told, while I agree with you about finding new things beyond the delineations of our theories, I don't think that a null result here would necessarily lead to much. IANAP, any corrections are appreciated.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe... Interesting reading.

This is why he's recognized. E=mc2 is minor. GR is the true genius part.

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR. Einstein could easily have received 4 Nobel prizes: for SR, GR, Photo-electric and his explanation of Brownian motion.

I disagree. His Nobel Prize was for "his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect," which was just a politically correct way of saying general relativity. At the time he received the Nobel Prize (1921) GR was, for the most part, accepted as correct by a good part of the scientific community as the first experiment to test GR was done in 1919, though he was constantly criticized for over a decade after the fact. However, I do agree that he could/should have won multiple Nobels.

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR.

Yep, that's the really ironic part. Einstein got a Nobel prize in Quantum Physics which he was staunchly opposed to. "Gott würfelt nicht!". But God may have a weird sense of humor.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has won multiple Nobels in a single field.

Okay, after checking that statement, it is not true. Frederick Sanger has won two Nobel prizes in Chemistry. He won it alone, in 1958, "for his work on the structure of proteins, especially that of insulin", and again in 1980, with Walter Gilbert, "for their contributions concerning the determination of base sequences in nucleic acids" (source).

It seems to me that the Nobel committee does not like to award the same prize twice. I think, had Frederick done the nucleic research on his own, he would not have won the second one. I think the committee only awarded him the second prize because not doing so would have denied Walter Gilbert the prize (and awarding only Walter a prize for joint work would be strange).

In that respect, Einstein got only one Nobel because he did his research alone.

Shachar

This is why he's recognized. E=mc2 is minor. GR is the true genius part.

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR. Einstein could easily have received 4 Nobel prizes: for SR, GR, Photo-electric and his explanation of Brownian motion. This is why he is recognized as a genius, more so than those who actually have won multiple Nobels.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2014/advanced-physicsprize2014_2.pdf

Disclaimer: TL;DR
I have to say this sure sounds more like an engineering breakthrough at best.
I'm even reluctant to use the word "breakthrough", as it seems more like a culmination of a series of technologies by many people beyond the celebrated laureates.
I'm sorry I don't quite see the "requiring a lot of fundamental physics research" (they made a better, more practical LED...but it's still a LED...there's no new PHYSICS here...).

Also, maybe they wanted to give a Nobel prize to both trios:

Physics: Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura.

Chemistry: Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell and William E. Moerner

And the second trio fitted better in chemistry than in physics.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Technically, the prize goes to "the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics". Insofar as 'inventions' are considered engineering, they fall within the scope of the physics prize. The 1912 prize, for example, went to the inventor of an automatic regulator for lighthouses.

Can you point to a place where the Nobel site is incorrect? Note that the Prize is for "efficient blue light-emitting diodes", not the first. Also if you look at this document is specifies that the work was in efficient blue LEDs and mentions earlier work on blue LEDs.

According to this document from the Nobel committee, white LEDs emit more than 300 lm/W, while CFLs are at 70 lm/W. This suggests white LEDs are more than 4 times as efficient than CFLs.

I bet there have been more recent developments in science that would have deserved more a Nobel Prize in Physics. Right?

Possibly, but not certainly. I don't know what translation of Alfred Nobels will you have read but the one at www.nobelprize.org is a fairly accurate apart from leaving out the personal stuff about relatives and former employees.

Note that the focus isn't, as some seem to believe, on the greatest advancement in each field, but rather on who have served mankind the most. It also doesn't limit the prize for physics to discoveries but also includes inventions.
In chemistry it is not only discoveries, but also improvements.
The inclusion of literature and the peace prize should make it clear beyond all doubt that the idea behind the prize is to reward things that directly benefit mankind, not academia/theoretical science.

In the regard of invention that benefited mankind the most the Raspberry Pi foundation could be more eligible for the Nobel Prize in physics than Peter Higgs.

Mod this joker down. he is neither insightful, nor correct, and he deliberately misquotes in order to create false impressions.

To Mi:
You are wrong on all counts.
And the morphing is being done by you.

One:
The relevant passage in his speech, that is to say, THE FULL ACTUAL QUOTE, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.

Emphasis added to show the oh so important part you left out.
http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Two:
It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Three:
Oh hey, you tossed in Solyndra too (Drink!). Do we really REALLY need to cover how Slyndra is just another dogwhistle distraction from the facts? How Solyndra and its ilk represented not even 3% of all monies loaned out by the DOE? How the other 97% have not onlyy been successful, but the Government has actually earned a profit, such that over the course of the program it was made more money that it loaded out? How the government earned a return on its investment and success rate unseen and generally unheard of in the private venture capiltal world? How Solyndra's, and other solar panel startups, failing was not due to their own mistakes, not due to any scam or con, but due to the fact China's panel amkers are heaviliy subsidized and undercut the international market? Or how some of the companies who initially failed, are now getting up and back on their feet again?

Bringing up Solyndra is akin to saying "global warming can't be real because it's cold outside".
It's that kind of ignorance and posturing. It's that kind of denial of, or ignoring of, reality.

Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here.
Go away.

You are wrong on all counts.

One: he never said it. The relevant passage in his speech, which you so thoughtfully left out in order to misconstrue what he said, is:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.

http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Two: It's only recovering if you ignore the past 3 decades of observation in order to focus on the past 2 years. The trend is down down down. 2012 was the lowest EVER RECORDED. So low it broke all records and even went beyond standard statistical deviation expectations. The last two years were more ice than 2012, but so was EVERY YEAR EVER RECORDED. That's what happens when you set a new record low. Make no mistake: The past 2 years of ice coverage have still be below average, and the trend is still down. It is NOT recovering, it is NOT increasing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Thank you for playing, but your lies and half truths have no place here.

FYI the International Mathematical Olympiad 2014 has just finished in Cape Town, South Africa.

http://www.imo2014.org.za/

I also suggest reading about Allan Cormack at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, Peace, and Economic Science are all listed on the official site...

Exactly. For example, every time Krugman gets involved in a debate about the banking sector, it becomes clear why he got the award. The Honorary Nobel Prize he got was handed to him by the head honchos at the Swedish Central Bank, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when his views are heavily leaned towards a more finance sector friendly Keynesian way of thinking.

So trying to boost his credibility with this "Nobel Prize" will only work on people who don't know what kind of a rigged anti-prize it is.

Absolutely false. The Riksbank gets its authority from the Swedish Parliament.

As you can see in this photo, Krugman is being handed his Nobel by King Carl XVI Gustaf who is a strictly ceremonial head of state. The King may be a customer of the bank, but he isn't a honcho at the bank; Parliament controls it.

However, figurehead Carl XVI Gustaf has no say in who gets the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences; that is decided by this group of professors. Not the Sveriges Riksbank at all. Yeah, I know, you've got a conspiracy theory to explain why all these professors are puppets of a bank. Bullshit.

I just don't get why people post lies on the internet that are so easily checked on the internet. Makes no sense dude; for a ten second chuckle, you've branded yourself a liar in the Slashdot community. Where's the win in that?

The prize is in honor of Nobel since Nobel did not institute a prize in economics. It was awarded in 2008 for Integrating the previously disparate research fields into a new, international trade and economic geography. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Incidentally about half of the recent Nobel prizes in chemistry
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
are for cellular biology.

Your advice is very good for teaching students how to go through life filling out tests.

It's not very good for teaching students how to accomplish something useful in science.

Thats a pretty good point, nevertheless i still think the leaks (either by facilitating or by making them) are a accomplishment to be worthy of nobel peace price, I totally think the actions are remarkable and the guys should be recognized as ballsy guys for doing it, but i dont think that saying some of the stuff an agency is doing actually is: -----> "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”" (taken from: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...) --- maybe a ... transparency price???

Note that this the second indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves, the first one was the orbital decay of a binary system that included a pulsar, discovered by Hulse and Taylor (Nobel Prize 1993). Today's result, if confirmed, seems pretty spectacular, and might be rewarded with a second Nobel Prize. For a first direct detection of gravitational waves, we have to wait for first detections by LIGO, Virgo and eLISA.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right? You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.

I'll bite. You just cut open the watermelon and proved it wasn't blue. Logic seems not a strong point here.

Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.

What kind of idiocy is this? Theories are based on numerous hypotheses. These can be proven or disproven but it is never up to the theory to explain how to validate or falsify the claims. Scientists validate or falsify the hypotheses. For example, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren overturned decades of medical thinking that peptic ulcers were primarily caused by stress and lifestyle. Instead they argued that it was mainly due to a bacteria named Helicobacter pylori. To prove, it they gave ulcer patients antibiotics and they were cured. For this, they won a Nobel Prize.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory

Neither did Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. No scientists is required to provide ways to falsify his theory. Faulty logic on your part. In fact, on the subject of Newton, his theory on gravitation was incomplete as it never fully described why Mercury wobbles. Yet it was accepted because it adequately described gravity for the most part. Einstein later refined Newton by showing that Newton's idea of gravity is a good approximation in situations of low mass and low speed (like on the Earth) whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity covered broader situations and adequately explained Mercury's orbit (and the rest of space-time).

which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.

Only if you willing to ignore the collective work of many scientists in paleontology, biology, microbiology, genetics, etc.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method

Again, faulty presupposition and logic on your part.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such.

No you are creating unreasonable demands on a theory you don't like. By your logic, Newton's idea of gravity must be thrown out as well as atomic physics and relativity as they conflict with each other.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution.

Bill Nye said it best when he said in the debate that it would only take one fossil out of place to disprove evolution. So far no one has done it. By your logic, you're wrong then.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined.

Ah, the creationists method of defining words to mean what it favorable to their argument.

A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

That's not circular reasoning. That's your lack of understand

I think you might want to read the citation from the Nobel Committee. It wasn't just for the photoelectric effect.

True, but this is what the Nobel web site says:
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...

Economically, the intrinsic value of something is approximately

Nothing has intrinsic value. Individuals decide how much value things have for themselves.

The concept of "intrinsic value" requires the existence of an "Uber-Evaluator" who dictates that intrinsic value. Because that value can and will be radically different to different people at different times. But no such evaluator exists, so I must agree with the AC comment that nothing has intrinsic value. Items can have radically different values to individuals and markets depending on circumstance.

Item: An artist spends 2000 hours creating a life-sized Salvador-Dali-esque image of Donald Duck in marble. Intrinsic value? Determined by who?
Item: An operational car a family just wants to get rid of. They donate it to a car-reseller charity. Intrinsic value of the car? Determined by who?
Item: 27.5 pound block of gold. Intrinsic value? Determined by who? To a starving Ethiopian child, it's without value.
Item: Side of beef. Intrinsic value? Determined by who? To the starving Ethiopian, extremely high value. To a vegan, no value at all.

The concept of "intrinsic" value is a lot like centrifugal force - it doesn't actually exist, but we have an idea of what you mean: a "typical price" fetched in a "functioning market" in "typical circumstances." Is a bubble market a functioning market? Heck, this year's Nobel Prize in Economics (yeah, I know it's not named that specifically) was awarded to three co-winners. One, Robert Shiller has done extensive work on bubbles. Another, Eugene Fama, denies bubbles even exist!

Officially it seems you're right, so either it's a rumor or someone did let it slip.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nomi...

> What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?
> Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

There is no doubt that women have made many important contributions to science. One may argue this one or that is or isn't a genius, but there is little doubt that science would be poorer without their contribution.

Madame Wu and the backward universe
Marie Curie - Biographical

Ten Historic Female Scientists You Should Know
Pioneering Women in Computing Technology
The 50 Most Important Women in Science