Slashdot Mirror


Ununoctium Wrapup

rkowen writes "Finding superheavy element 118 would have been a giant step in the quest for the conjectured island of nuclear stability. But now the claimed discovery is thought to have been part of a pattern of deception by one physicist that goes back to 1994." We've done several previous stories: the discovery, hints of trouble, possible fraud. Between this and the Schon case one might think the physics community was full of frauds.

10 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Shut it Michael. by Hard_Code · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He said one might think. Not that you might think or that he might think. Chill out.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  2. Re:Shut it Michael. by siphoncolder · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Michael, why don't you keep your inane banter to yourself?

    Agreed. Just the facts, Michael. Every industry and science is prone to human fallibility/fraud, from archaeology to chemistry and physics. That's not news or even noteworthy.

    If you had some kind of worthwhile editorial comments to add, you wouldn't get this backlash. You've added nothing but a sniping comment that has absolutely nothing to do with science and the realities of the GOOD things that come out of it every day, and shows nothing but contempt, ignorance, and a tendency towards tabloid-style knee-jerk reactions.

    To paraphrase Marge Simpson:
    "THINK before you say the words!"

    --
    i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
  3. A conversation between 2 physic researchers by mustangdavis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Researcher 1:Man, I'm tired!

    Researcher 2:Been working all day?

    Researcher 1:No, I was working out ... I put up 120 today! Don't my arms look bigger?

    Researcher 2:120??? No way! Researcher 1:Yes way, dude! And a really hot chick was checking me out while I was doing that, so I have proof!

    Researcher 2:Prove it!

    Researcher 1:Uhhh .... I'm too tired right now ... mabye later ...

    Researcher 2:Yea, just like when you were going to prove that you made superheavy element 118 ...

    Researcher 1:Hey! I did do that! I did! I did! I did!

    Researcher 2:Prove it! Researcher 1:Uhh ... I'm too tired, maybe later ...

    Researcher 2:Dude, you're so full of shit!

    Researcher 1:Am not! Are you calling me a liar?

    Researcher 2:Then prove it ...

    Researcher 1:You're such a jerk!

    Researcher 2:Heh ... I knew it! You can't prove it!

    Researcher 1: *sniffle* I'm moving to a different town! *stomps off crying with hot blonde on his arm*

  4. Re:Not his fault. by RGRistroph · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To clarify, I posted that comment before I realized I was walking into a mod-war. Can you children please mod each other down and leave me out of it ? And I'd like to encourage the annonymous poster to leave more details. You don't have to reveal yourself of course, or post information that could be used to track you down, but with the little you posted I can't even start a good rumour ! Throw me a bone here ! Was the data known bad at time of publication ? Maybe it was discovered bad later and the retraction is just slow in coming out ? Or was is purposely faked ?

  5. Re:Not his fault. by leviramsey · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I don't understand why the parent post is modded down.

    Three Words

    Michael. Sims. Bitchslap.

  6. Re:Deceptive and Crackpot Science by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Geez, not you again.

    Can't stand it, can you? It makes your blood boil.

    Look, when you make a four-vector (t,x,y,z) there is an IMPLIED factor of c in the time component, otherwise the units are wrong. Your entire argument is predicated on not understanding the system of units commonly used in particle physics.

    Implied factor, my foot! The distance traveled in spacetime is indeed given as ct in relativity. ct is measured in meters, not seconds!!! There is indeed an evolution in a fourth spatial dimension. Where is the time travel in that, pray tell? Get a clue!

  7. Love the moderation by 0x0d0a · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Offtopic=1, Flamebait=7, Troll=1, Insightful=6, Interesting=3, Funny=1, Overrated=3, Underrated=2, Total=24

    Are there any categories that someone *hasn't* dropped this into?

    1. Re:Love the moderation by jeffy124 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      there is -- Redundant. Oddly enough, it's one that suits the post most, seems like every week there's people trying to tell michael to grow up.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    2. Re:Love the moderation by catwh0re · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      oh it's gotten even worse since then... looks like people are just agreeing to all their moderations and pressing ok, without actually reading the list of responses... they don't sound like overrated, flame bait, trolling or off topic, yet someone has just ticked "fair" in their mods.

  8. Holy moderation batman by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ealar mourns for juuri's karma

    --
    I live in a giant bucket.