Thank you for that very informative answer. I guess what I'm still unclear on is that all the measurements we take on the light, composition, distance, etc. still have to be interpreted by models that attempt to predict how stars behave over billions of years. What assurances do we have that those models are accurate, given the incredibly short (in comparison) span of time we have been collecting detailed data on star characteristics?
Right but how were they able to "reliably identify the oldest stars inhabiting the galaxy." How can they reliably say what the age of a star millions of light years away is?
Zwicky: But if you want some inside info, I heard NGC-4725 really has the hots for you. Her center hole has been getting larger with each passing millennia.
Ok, I'm not an astronomer, but how can someone reliably determine that a region of space 45 million light years away is 500 million years old? It's not like we can go there and conduct tests. Is the light we receive from that galazy somehow different from light elsewhere? Does light have an "age" that can be detected by some instrument?
Given that there is still considerable dispute about the range of accuracy of various dating methods here on earth that use laboratory equipment to examine objects extremely closely, how can this ultra-remote dating be considered reliable?
Then I really don't understand what your objection to my original post was. I was not defending these peoples' position, nor saying it was rational. I was merely pointing out that the "scientific community" is not infallible and can make collective mistakes.
Sound barrier:
"The term sound barrier is often associated with supersonic flight. In particular, "breaking the sound barrier" is the process of accelerating through Mach 1 and going from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The term originated in the 1940s when researchers discovered a large increase in drag that seemed to indicate that an infinite amount of thrust would be needed to fly at the speed of sound. In other words, some believed that a physical barrier existed that would prevent an aircraft from ever being able to travel at supersonic speeds. Since there obviously is no such barrier, the term sound barrier is outdated and really should not be used any more. Nevertheless, it has become a popular part of the human language, and continues in use."
Obviously the people who believed this were using flawed methods of reasoning. However, claiming there were none who thought this way is simply denying history. The Wikipedia article has a good synopsis. Yes the fact that bullets were known to travel at supersonic velocities should have clued these people in as to the errors in their equations. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another reply, scientists sometimes choose to ignore factual data that contradicts their preferred theories.
Maybe the local parishiner in the middle of nowhere believed that it was impossible, but certainly not any scientist who managed to get through High School.
Sorry, but yes some did. I provided a published source. Anderson knew the community at the time and is greatly respected in the Aerospace industry today. I don't believe he is a liar. I agree it's absurd. But scientists in the middle ages believed that the sun revolved around the earth. That was absurd too.
It's amazing they believed this in the '40s, considering rifle bullets were traveling close to Mach 3 during WWI!
I agree. However, some scientists have a tendency to ignore factual data that contradicts their theories. I'm not exactly sure what causes this. It could be an ego thing (if their theory is proven wrong then they become irrelevant), or it could be an over-reliance on mathematical methods (if the equation says so then it MUST be true), or it could be something else.
With all due respect, that's my field too and I say horse hockey.
Ok, if you need a more authoritative source how about John Anderson, Curator for Aerodynamics at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum? He discussed that very example in an aerospace textbook. His characterization was basically the same as what I wrote.
That's ridiculous; it sounds like an urban legend to me.
Nope, not an urban legend. In fact that's how the term "sound barrier" first came into use. Some felt it was a barrier that could not be surpassed.
Bullets and other objects were well known to travel supersonically; they clearly didn't experience any "infinite drag" when passing through the sound barrier. Why, then, should a much more aerodynamic aircraft?
It's a different type of drag. There is more than one type. The predicted infinite drag was wave drag (this becomes significant for airfoils at supersonic speeds). A bullet experiences mostly pressure drag as it is a blunt object. Pressure drag and wave drag are not governed by the same equations.
The first fission experiments were conducted by Fermi in the early 30s. It took over a decade for fission to produce any practical application and during that time there were differences of opinion within the scientific community about whether it ever would.
I'm not trying to imply that cold fusion will ultimately have the same benefits, because it may not. I'm just saying that it often takes a while for science to realize the merit of new ideas.
While I agree with this in principle, unfortunately not even the peer-reviewed scientific community is always correct in deciding whether certain research is based on scientific merit.
An old school example of this from my field (Aerospace):
In the early 40s many Aerospace scientists and engineers believed that we would never be able to break the speed of sound because one of the equations that was used to calculate drag predicted that it would approach infinity as the speed approached Mach 1. To oppose an infinite drag would require an infinite thrust, clearly impossible. As it turned out, that particular equation was not valid for airflows in the sonic region.
Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use). Just because we can't make it work now doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Nor does it mean we should abandon all avenues of research pertaining to it.
If you can manage to carry a spudgun around the streets of LA and shoot and hit someone with it without sticking out like a sore naked fat man, then more power to you.
I don't think she was saying people don't have the right to pursue information, just that not all information should be made public. I took it to mean that whether or not the records should be released depends on the nature of the information that caused them to be sealed in the first place.
She is just saying that certain information should remain private. The public does not have a right to access all types of information. Do I have a right to know your SSN? Or view your medical records? No. That is privileged information that need not be divulged for public review.
While that example is only valid in an individual sense, the same reasoning can be applied to a corporate setting. If the court discussed information that is within the rights of SCO and/or IBM to retain as private, the public does not have an implicit right to demand access to that. If on the other hand someone just wants to hide the skeletons in the closet, then perhaps more public proceedings are called for.
Oops, my bad you're right. It was the TEXAS Dept. of Education Bush said he wanted to abolish and it was during the 1994 campaign. Must have gotten that mixed up. However, my point is ironically still valid. Bush didn't abolish the Texas Education dept. He ended up strengthening it. So he still didn't keep his word.
Actually, I think it still is. Bush said he would abolish it in the 2000 campaign. That must mean it's going to happen any day now, because we all know how well Bush keeps hi... oh wait.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for that very informative answer. I guess what I'm still unclear on is that all the measurements we take on the light, composition, distance, etc. still have to be interpreted by models that attempt to predict how stars behave over billions of years. What assurances do we have that those models are accurate, given the incredibly short (in comparison) span of time we have been collecting detailed data on star characteristics?
Right but how were they able to "reliably identify the oldest stars inhabiting the galaxy." How can they reliably say what the age of a star millions of light years away is?
Zwicky: Too young for you to bang. Sorry.
Zwicky: But if you want some inside info, I heard NGC-4725 really has the hots for you. Her center hole has been getting larger with each passing millennia.
Ok, I'm not an astronomer, but how can someone reliably determine that a region of space 45 million light years away is 500 million years old? It's not like we can go there and conduct tests. Is the light we receive from that galazy somehow different from light elsewhere? Does light have an "age" that can be detected by some instrument?
Given that there is still considerable dispute about the range of accuracy of various dating methods here on earth that use laboratory equipment to examine objects extremely closely, how can this ultra-remote dating be considered reliable?
The magnitudes are larger yes, I was referring to the composition of the total drag from the various components.
Country jokes make it into news headlines.
Of course there were people who believed that
Then I really don't understand what your objection to my original post was. I was not defending these peoples' position, nor saying it was rational. I was merely pointing out that the "scientific community" is not infallible and can make collective mistakes.
From this page-
Sound barrier:
"The term sound barrier is often associated with supersonic flight. In particular, "breaking the sound barrier" is the process of accelerating through Mach 1 and going from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The term originated in the 1940s when researchers discovered a large increase in drag that seemed to indicate that an infinite amount of thrust would be needed to fly at the speed of sound. In other words, some believed that a physical barrier existed that would prevent an aircraft from ever being able to travel at supersonic speeds. Since there obviously is no such barrier, the term sound barrier is outdated and really should not be used any more. Nevertheless, it has become a popular part of the human language, and continues in use."
Obviously the people who believed this were using flawed methods of reasoning. However, claiming there were none who thought this way is simply denying history. The Wikipedia article has a good synopsis. Yes the fact that bullets were known to travel at supersonic velocities should have clued these people in as to the errors in their equations. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another reply, scientists sometimes choose to ignore factual data that contradicts their preferred theories.
Maybe the local parishiner in the middle of nowhere believed that it was impossible, but certainly not any scientist who managed to get through High School.
Sorry, but yes some did. I provided a published source. Anderson knew the community at the time and is greatly respected in the Aerospace industry today. I don't believe he is a liar. I agree it's absurd. But scientists in the middle ages believed that the sun revolved around the earth. That was absurd too.
Good thing it redirects.
I don't know. I would have to ask them. And since they are all dead, that would be kind of hard. ;)
It's amazing they believed this in the '40s, considering rifle bullets were traveling close to Mach 3 during WWI!
I agree. However, some scientists have a tendency to ignore factual data that contradicts their theories. I'm not exactly sure what causes this. It could be an ego thing (if their theory is proven wrong then they become irrelevant), or it could be an over-reliance on mathematical methods (if the equation says so then it MUST be true), or it could be something else.
Supersonic airplane flight was a stability and control problem.
Exactly. I was merely stating that some (obviously misguided) engineers had postulated that a theoretical problem existed where none did.
Not exactly. What I was saying was that the percentage of the total drag represented by pressure drag will be much greater for a blunt object.
Drag forces on a bullet are not the same as on an airfoil.
With all due respect, that's my field too and I say horse hockey.
Ok, if you need a more authoritative source how about John Anderson, Curator for Aerodynamics at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum? He discussed that very example in an aerospace textbook. His characterization was basically the same as what I wrote.
That's ridiculous; it sounds like an urban legend to me.
Nope, not an urban legend. In fact that's how the term "sound barrier" first came into use. Some felt it was a barrier that could not be surpassed.
Bullets and other objects were well known to travel supersonically; they clearly didn't experience any "infinite drag" when passing through the sound barrier. Why, then, should a much more aerodynamic aircraft?
It's a different type of drag. There is more than one type. The predicted infinite drag was wave drag (this becomes significant for airfoils at supersonic speeds). A bullet experiences mostly pressure drag as it is a blunt object. Pressure drag and wave drag are not governed by the same equations.
Ummm... once fission was discovered
The first fission experiments were conducted by Fermi in the early 30s. It took over a decade for fission to produce any practical application and during that time there were differences of opinion within the scientific community about whether it ever would.
I'm not trying to imply that cold fusion will ultimately have the same benefits, because it may not. I'm just saying that it often takes a while for science to realize the merit of new ideas.
While I agree with this in principle, unfortunately not even the peer-reviewed scientific community is always correct in deciding whether certain research is based on scientific merit.
An old school example of this from my field (Aerospace):
In the early 40s many Aerospace scientists and engineers believed that we would never be able to break the speed of sound because one of the equations that was used to calculate drag predicted that it would approach infinity as the speed approached Mach 1. To oppose an infinite drag would require an infinite thrust, clearly impossible. As it turned out, that particular equation was not valid for airflows in the sonic region.
Lots of people felt the same way about nuclear energy in the 40s (both for war and peacetime use). Just because we can't make it work now doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Nor does it mean we should abandon all avenues of research pertaining to it.
If you can manage to carry a spudgun around the streets of LA and shoot and hit someone with it without sticking out like a sore naked fat man, then more power to you.
I don't think she was saying people don't have the right to pursue information, just that not all information should be made public. I took it to mean that whether or not the records should be released depends on the nature of the information that caused them to be sealed in the first place.
She is just saying that certain information should remain private. The public does not have a right to access all types of information. Do I have a right to know your SSN? Or view your medical records? No. That is privileged information that need not be divulged for public review.
While that example is only valid in an individual sense, the same reasoning can be applied to a corporate setting. If the court discussed information that is within the rights of SCO and/or IBM to retain as private, the public does not have an implicit right to demand access to that. If on the other hand someone just wants to hide the skeletons in the closet, then perhaps more public proceedings are called for.
There is nothing more depressing to me than listening to how other industrial countries' space programs are flourishing while ours stagnates.
Especially considering that Russia has a mere fraction of the money available to us.
I forgot to mention, if you want examples of Bush lying, you should watch the Bush/Bush debate, moderated by Jon Stewart.
Oops, my bad you're right. It was the TEXAS Dept. of Education Bush said he wanted to abolish and it was during the 1994 campaign. Must have gotten that mixed up. However, my point is ironically still valid. Bush didn't abolish the Texas Education dept. He ended up strengthening it. So he still didn't keep his word.
Actually, I think it still is. Bush said he would abolish it in the 2000 campaign. That must mean it's going to happen any day now, because we all know how well Bush keeps hi... oh wait.