One simple answer to your question is: conservation of momentum. Each proton is given a huge momentum in the Fermilab accelerator, then directed against a target, say, a steel plate. Each proton interacts with some particle in the target, producing, typically, a large collection of other particles. Most, if not all, of these new particles will be carrying a substantial fraction of the original proton's momentum and will therefore be going in nearly the same direction as the proton. The neutrinos pass through northern Minnesota a fraction of a second later.
This answer is equivalent to the one given by mako1138 above, but in the Fermilab frame of reference.
>Given that neutrinos take away so little momentum...
you wrote: >Yes. Do you think nothing worthwhile was >discovered before the scientific method?
I don't understand the relevance of this question, as the entire thread since the AC poster you replied to has been about the behavior of people _after_ the invention of the scientific method.
(FWIW, my answer would be "no".)
>Having god as an 'unshakable fact' means you are >going to be led astray when dealing with >questions that involve god.
I know of no scientific question that necessarily involves god. That includes questions about evolution.
>As a good example of this here is his quote >"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, >but it cannot explain who set the planets in >motion. God governs all things and knows all >that is or can be done". Is this science?
Certainly not. You seem to be saying that this quote shows Newton allowing religious belief to influence scientific reasoning. On the contrary, I think this quote shows Newton distinguishing between scientific questions and religious ones.
>Does this help or hinder his examination of the >natural world?
I didn't know Newton personally:-), but I suspect the answer is "neither".
I like your response! It prompts me to add two responses in turn:
1) If every scientist is doing "improper science", it's some kind of miracle that humans have gained any scientific understanding at all.
2) I'll restate my original point with a declarative sentence rather than as a question to Cassius Corodes. There's no fundamental problem with believing in God while doing scientific research. The AC poster above describes the motivation of scientists as "searching for God's rule book". I doubt that's univerally true, but I suspect that many scientists were, and continue to be, motivated by that search.
Cassius Corodes wrote: >Science is about trying to understand how things >work. If you have already decided that god >exists then you are not doing proper science.
From your claim, and the fact that Isaac Newton was a Christian theologian and believed in God, it follows that Newton was not doing proper science. Do you agree with that conclusion?
A) True Positive:
the alarm goes off and I'm carrying a bomb; B) True Negative:
the alarm doesn't go off and I'm not carrying a bomb; C) False Positive:
the alarm goes off but I'm not carrying a bomb; D) False Negative:
the alarm doesn't go off but I am carrying a bomb.
Although the article doesn't say, I'd hope that "accuracy" means (A) and (B) only. Then the article should tell us how much of "22%" is (C) and how much is (D). As noted below in the "Love the accuracy" thread, both (C) and (D) are problems, but we can fully expect that government will underestimate the cost to society of (C). Based on past experience with systems of this kind, we can expect that the cost of (C) ("False Positives") will be high.
>No, that is just an urban legend. >Even Ferris fell for that once...
No, it's not just an urban legend, but you need to consider cars more than 30 or so years old. I don't know if the Ferrari in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" would be old enough.
When I was quite young, in the early 60s, my father drove the family Karmann Ghia in reverse partway home, in order to show me an odometer reading of 55,555.
"...wait for 10 billion years...": no, whatever happened seems to have happened some 10 billion years _ago_.
"...convergence of fake radiation...": although the 10-billion-year-old events are still quite open to argument, the astronomers observed _real_ radiation from them.
"...fricken verifiable data closer to earth...": any slashdotter can tell you that you'll get your nearby black hole data just a few dozen milliseconds after the LHC starts working.
A better question: when is the U.S. Congress getting this?
Could you please infect http://www.thomas.gov/ with a virus that reads legislation back to your Congressman before he foolishly votes on it?
Slashdot Mirror
Hello bkpark,
One simple answer to your question is: conservation of momentum. Each proton is given a huge momentum in the Fermilab accelerator, then directed against a target, say, a steel plate. Each proton interacts with some particle in the target, producing, typically, a large collection of other particles. Most, if not all, of these new particles will be carrying a substantial fraction of the original proton's momentum and will therefore be going in nearly the same direction as the proton. The neutrinos pass through northern Minnesota a fraction of a second later.
This answer is equivalent to the one given by mako1138 above, but in the Fermilab frame of reference.
>Given that neutrinos take away so little momentum...
That is not a given and is usually not true.
Thank you for your answer.
you wrote:
>Yes. Do you think nothing worthwhile was
>discovered before the scientific method?
I don't understand the relevance of this question, as the entire thread since the AC poster you replied to has been about the behavior of people _after_ the invention of the scientific method.
(FWIW, my answer would be "no".)
>Having god as an 'unshakable fact' means you are
>going to be led astray when dealing with
>questions that involve god.
I know of no scientific question that necessarily involves god. That includes questions about evolution.
>As a good example of this here is his quote
>"Gravity explains the motions of the planets,
>but it cannot explain who set the planets in
>motion. God governs all things and knows all
>that is or can be done". Is this science?
Certainly not. You seem to be saying that this quote shows Newton allowing religious belief to influence scientific reasoning. On the contrary, I think this quote shows Newton distinguishing between scientific questions and religious ones.
>Does this help or hinder his examination of the
>natural world?
I didn't know Newton personally :-), but I suspect the answer is "neither".
Hello B1oodAnge1,
I like your response! It prompts me to add two responses in turn:
1) If every scientist is doing "improper science", it's some kind of miracle that humans have gained any scientific understanding at all.
2) I'll restate my original point with a declarative sentence rather than as a question to Cassius Corodes. There's no fundamental problem with believing in God while doing scientific research. The AC poster above describes the motivation of scientists as "searching for God's rule book". I doubt that's univerally true, but I suspect that many scientists were, and continue to be, motivated by that search.
Cassius Corodes wrote:
>Science is about trying to understand how things
>work. If you have already decided that god
>exists then you are not doing proper science.
From your claim, and the fact that Isaac Newton was a Christian theologian and believed in God, it follows that Newton was not doing proper science. Do you agree with that conclusion?
You are correct. See
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/nsa-releases-se.html
for a summary and see
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/tempest.pdf
for the recently declassified document. The discovery of this problem is dated to 1943.
"...not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color..."
In what sense is gender not a benign characteristic?
Hello wjh31,
I am using the terminology as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_error
In this case:
A) True Positive:
the alarm goes off and I'm carrying a bomb;
B) True Negative:
the alarm doesn't go off and I'm not carrying a bomb;
C) False Positive:
the alarm goes off but I'm not carrying a bomb;
D) False Negative:
the alarm doesn't go off but I am carrying a bomb.
Although the article doesn't say, I'd hope that "accuracy" means (A) and (B) only. Then the article should tell us how much of "22%" is (C) and how much is (D). As noted below in the "Love the accuracy" thread, both (C) and (D) are problems, but we can fully expect that government will underestimate the cost to society of (C). Based on past experience with systems of this kind, we can expect that the cost of (C) ("False Positives") will be high.
FTA: "We are running at about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection..."
And that's supposed to be good? What fraction of the remaining 22% can we expect to be false positives?
[begin sarcasm]
I look forward to a future in which the police stop me more than they already do.
[end sarcasm]
>No, that is just an urban legend.
>Even Ferris fell for that once...
No, it's not just an urban legend, but you need to consider cars more than 30 or so years old. I don't know if the Ferrari in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" would be old enough.
When I was quite young, in the early 60s, my father drove the family Karmann Ghia in reverse partway home, in order to show me an odometer reading of 55,555.
A quick web search turned up this page:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3667671.html
which indicates that patents for one-way odometers were being issued in 1970.
Several responses to your post:
"...wait for 10 billion years...": no, whatever happened seems to have happened some 10 billion years _ago_.
"...convergence of fake radiation...": although the 10-billion-year-old events are still quite open to argument, the astronomers observed _real_ radiation from them.
"...fricken verifiable data closer to earth...": any slashdotter can tell you that you'll get your nearby black hole data just a few dozen milliseconds after the LHC starts working.
A better question: when is the U.S. Congress getting this? Could you please infect http://www.thomas.gov/ with a virus that reads legislation back to your Congressman before he foolishly votes on it?