The public’s misconceptions of science or scientific topics

[Mid]

Well in response to this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1532308,00.html

I was wondering if anyone had any examples of strange beliefs/misconceptions about science that they’ve been exposed to and wish to share?

I would love to start the ball rolling with some misconception I’ve heard but I can’t think of any memorable ones at the moment; still I thought I would start the thread as it could be potentially interesting.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I agree, this could be interesting.

The thing about "organic" being superior to "artificial" is one of those misconceptions, as its pointed out in the article. But, for me, one of the most interesting ones is related to "time travel".

Yes, maybe the idea is older than science (now that I think about it, I really dont know when it begun), still, the possibility (or impossibility) it is based on science.

For me is absurd. Where is a minute ago? Its gone. End of story.

One thing is that physics formulaes "allow it" and another very different the ontollogical status of past and future.

Oh well, complex subject, and now that I think it twice, maybe its not that related to the opening post! But hey, I need my breakfast before deep thinking. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Last night I attended a meeting of the Carlisle Education Foundation, I've which I am treasurer. We spent half the meeting discussing an idea to start a science club at the school. A couple of town scientists (physicist, electrical engineer) presented their ideas for teaching units for the club, along with a request for funds for equipment. Great stuff. Everyone agreed it was a marvelous idea and that we would fund it, with hopes to integrate it into the curriculum in the future.

At the end of the meeting, I volunteered to teach the astrology unit. Three people looked at me and said "Really? Cool." I explained that I would pass out the same chart to all the students and have them evaluate it, then switch charts. Ha ha, funny. Two people got mad at me. One person told me she could tell me exactly where the planets were on the day I was born, just from my personality.

We're an upscale town with smart people. Amazing. At least the two scientists were not impressed. The planet reader is an artist. :D

~~ Paul

[Mongrel]

The thing about "organic" being superior to "artificial" is one of those misconceptions

To take it a step further the misconception that genetic engineering (in it's simplest form) is new.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The planet reader is an artist. :D

~~ Paul
I would at this point like to deny any possible allegations that this person represents the typical art student. At least I hope not. Got lucky enough to get my BA in art without encountering any big woos.

[Z]

Well, what about evolution theory itself? I still meet plenty of folks who insist there is no possible way that they evolved from monkeys.

"After all, there are still monkeys!" they insist.

:rolleyes:

Or those thinking we can just whip together a warp drive sometime in the next century and break the 'light barrier'. Hmmm... Methinks not.

[Kell]

In relation to evolution, I think one of the most common and pertinent misconceptions is the definition of the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' as used in science.

As an example, a friend of mine recently betrayed this particular misconception recently when we were discussing religion. She said "I believe the theory of evolution is just that - a theory".
She doesn't lack intelligence and had gotten quite incensed eariler when we were both browsing through the brick testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com) website: neither of us are really fans of organised religion. But I did take a few moments to politely explain the correct use (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) of the word 'theory' re: evolution.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mid
Well in response to this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1532308,00.html



The person in the article states:


I'll get the ball rolling. Last week, I was at a party and somebody starting telling me that the theories produced by science would be different if it had been done by women. I asked her whether she thought Newton's three laws of motion might have turned out differently if he had been a woman, and she said yes, of course. I asked her how, exactly, she thought that Newton could single-handedly change the fact that acceleration of a body is proportional to the force acting on it, divided by its mass? And she walked off. Chalk up one to the nerds; and this is only the most stupid thing I've heard this week.


There's a confusion here between the way the world really is, and our theories describing that world. For any macroscopic state of affairs it seems to be possible to devise mutually incompatible theories utilising differing scientific entities which adequately describe such a state of affairs.

Now if I were that woman, that is what I would have said! :D

Chalk one down to the nerds :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]Well, what about evolution theory itself? I still meet plenty of folks who insist there is no possible way that they evolved from monkeys.

"After all, there are still monkeys!" they insist.

:rolleyes:



We didn't evolve from monkeys.



Or those thinking we can just whip together a warp drive sometime in the next century and break the 'light barrier'. Hmmm... Methinks not.

Why couldn't you break the light barrier?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Mid

I was wondering if anyone had any examples of strange beliefs/misconceptions about science that they’ve been exposed to and wish to share?

Be happy to. :D

Cut n' pasted from OccultForums (http://www.occultforums.com):

[...] Lifeforce energy (or prana, chi, ki,) is channeled to the earth from the sun. it is absorbed by organic life here on earth. (among which man is only 8%) and then fed to the moon.... the energy from the sun is known under many terms such as prana, ki, and etc. however, these are finer hydrogens which very few humans can manipulate or even store for that matter. the hydrogens that are neede for pyschic use are hydrogen 48, hydrogen 24, and hydrogen 12. [...]
Oh my. What the hell do you say to that, besides linking to Wikipedia's isotope page? :hit:

[Mid]

Originally posted by Nex
...snip...
Oh my. What the hell do you say to that, besides linking to Wikipedia's isotope page? :hit:
Wow so many strange ideas all wraped up into one unified theory, it most have taken some effort to think up is all I can say

Edited to make clear the strange ideas related to the woo-woo and not me

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We didn't evolve from monkeys.



Why couldn't you break the light barrier?

It is a meaningless question. It represents a misunderstanding of the nature of speed of light. It is meaningless to talk about going faster than the speed of light.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
It is a meaningless question. It represents a misunderstanding of the nature of speed of light. It is meaningless to talk about going faster than the speed of light.

Breaking the light barrier is certainly not meaningless even if it were impossible.

[John Jackson]

A few years back, I heard a radio phone-in show which was talking about God, nature, evolution, and similar.

One man phoned in and said that God must exist because it’s too much to believe that there is ground to walk on, food to eat, oxygen to breathe etc. All just a bit too convenient. :D

Unfortunately the host didn’t know how to counteract the point. :rolleyes:

[Dorfl]

We didn't evolve from monkeys.
What did we evolve from then?
Why couldn't you break the light barrier?
Because things become more massive the more kinetic energy they have, meaning that they require more energy to accelerate the faster they move. This means that you get diminishing returns on your attempts to accelerate something past light-speed, returns which vanish completely before you have reached light-speed.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dorfl

Because things become more massive the more kinetic energy they have, meaning that they require more energy to accelerate the faster they move. This means that you get diminishing returns on your attempts to accelerate something past light-speed, returns which vanish completely before you have reached light-speed.

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question "why can't you break the light barrier?" It only answers the question "why can't you break the light barrier by accelerating?"

A stable of the sci-fi thrillers that routinely break the light barrier do by some form of a doublespeak drive (think of the Falcon trying to "jump to hyperspace"), using some method other than simple acceleration, for example by bending space into some sort of topological nightmare or transitioning between universes where the laws of physics are different.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Dorfl
What did we evolve from then?

Because things become more massive the more kinetic energy they have, meaning that they require more energy to accelerate the faster they move. This means that you get diminishing returns on your attempts to accelerate something past light-speed, returns which vanish completely before you have reached light-speed.

Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. Monkeys and humans are seperate lines on the evolutionary tree.

Our current models of motion through space produce either division by 0 or square roots of negative numbers when velocity exceeds the speed of light. Which is not to say we can't imagine other methods of travel, such as worm holes, which are different from ordinary linear motion through 3D space. We are no where close to any such practical possibility, nor have any such ideas been proven even theoretically feasible. But they can't actually be ruled out...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question "why can't you break the light barrier?" It only answers the question "why can't you break the light barrier by accelerating?"

Sure it does. The only question it doesn't address is a different one: why isn't light emitted from a moving object traveling at c + the object's speed.

[Dorfl]

Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question "why can't you break the light barrier?" It only answers the question "why can't you break the light barrier by accelerating?"

A stable of the sci-fi thrillers that routinely break the light barrier do by some form of a doublespeak drive (think of the Falcon trying to "jump to hyperspace"), using some method other than simple acceleration, for example by bending space into some sort of topological nightmare or transitioning between universes where the laws of physics are different.
True.
Hmm... I remember reading that this would make you end up in the past, but since I don't remember where I read this I'm not very confident in it's truthhood. Does anybody know if this is true or just part of an SF-story?

[Quinn]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
One person told me she could tell me exactly where the planets were on the day I was born, just from my personality.

Well??? Did you take her up on it?

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
The thing about "organic" being superior to "artificial" is one of those misconceptions, as its pointed out in the article. But, for me, one of the most interesting ones is related to "time travel".
I never understood that "unnatural" concept people have been peddling for as long as our collective history can remember. We were produced by natural processes; we would accordingly be an agent of them, so whatever we do has to be "natural." The notion of "unnaturalness" just reeks of egocentric ignorance in that it paints a picture of humanity as being wholly apart from the rest of the world.

[Dorfl]

Originally posted by patnray:
Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. Monkeys and humans are seperate lines on the evolutionary tree.
You're right, I confused "monkeys" and "primates".
Originally posted by BillHoyt:
why isn't light emitted from a moving object traveling at c + the object's speed.
Because the speed of light is absolute, meaning that light moves at the speed c according to any reference point.
The reason that this in not contradictory (since light travelling at c away from both an object we consider stationary* and an object we consider moving seems highly paradoxical) is that time moves more slowly for you the faster you move, meaning that the light can travel away from both a stationary and a moving object at 299.792.458* meters per second because a second is longer for the moving object than the stationary one.

Or so I think anyway, there may be some length-contraction and stuff involved as well.

*The theory of General Relativity says that we cannot talk about "stationary" and "moving" objects, only object we use as reference points and objects that move in relation to them.
*For some reason that number has stuck in my memory.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Sure it does. The only question it doesn't address is a different one: why isn't light emitted from a moving object traveling at c + the object's speed.

I don't think I see this. How does the argument from infinitely increasing mass exclude, for example, Alcubierre's warp drive (which works, in theory, by "expanding space" behind the star ship and "contracting it" in front, in such a way that the star ship is alway at rest w.r.t. local spacetime)?

There are a number of technical problems (!) with the proposal, starting with the fact that it would take a form of exotic matter -- matter with negative energy density -- to build, and we're don't know whether we could actually create such matter. (QM does allow for matter with negative energy density, so the idea isn't provably impossible. Just unimaginably improbable.) But the whole point behind his proposal is the simple reasons why warp drive isn't possible don't really stand up.

I should note in passing that NASA takes this kind of stuff seriously enough to be willing to support some degree of blue-sky, high-risk research. From 1996-2002 (I may have the dates slightly off), the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/) was looking into these possibilities. In NASA's words, "As the name implies, this program is specifically looking for propulsion breakthroughs from physics. It is not looking for further technological refinements of existing methods. Such refinements are being explored in other programs under the ASTP. Instead, this program looks beyond the known methods, searching for further advances in science from which genuinely new technology can emerge - technology to surpass the limits of existing methods." Alcubierre's warp drive was prominently mentioned in the various bibliographies of this project.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dorfl
True.
Hmm... I remember reading that this would make you end up in the past, but since I don't remember where I read this I'm not very confident in it's truthhood. Does anybody know if this is true or just part of an SF-story?

Um, which science fiction story? FTL travel has been a staple of SF since the old pulp days of Doc Smith and his "intertialess" drive.

Under "standard" relativity theory, if you are travelling faster than the speed of light, relative to one observer, then there is another reference frame relative to which you appear to be moving backwards in time. If you string a series of FTL journeys together, which typically involves using several different reference frames at really wierd speeds relative to each other, and string them together just right, you can arrange to start from a given point in space and return to that point at an earlier time. But it's not clear how that would interact with some of the more exotic suggestions about FTL travel, since they may not allow you to hit some of the more exotic reference frames.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I don't think I see this. How does the argument from infinitely increasing mass exclude, for example, Alcubierre's warp drive (which works, in theory, by "expanding space" behind the star ship and "contracting it" in front, in such a way that the star ship is alway at rest w.r.t. local spacetime)?

There are a number of technical problems (!) with the proposal, starting with the fact that it would take a form of exotic matter -- matter with negative energy density -- to build, and we're don't know whether we could actually create such matter. (QM does allow for matter with negative energy density, so the idea isn't provably impossible. Just unimaginably improbable.) But the whole point behind his proposal is the simple reasons why warp drive isn't possible don't really stand up.
Actually I have the whole problem worked out, but I'm too busy planning my class reunion to patent it.

Maybe in January, after the hoildays, but before the February Sweeps, I'll have time.

[Dorfl]

[I]Originally posted by drkitten[I/]
Um, which science fiction story?
"Look to windwards" by Iain M. Banks.
He never really said it outright but I think that some of what he said should imply it.
What he said was that there is no absolute "now", so that if even if something seems (in this case it "seems" because my intuitive understanding of the world says that this should be the case, not because of anything involving different reference-points) to have happened a light-year away from me a year ago, it actually is "now" for me.
Since this sounds like somebody else's past is my now, shouldn't instant travel on my part end me up in his past, or have I just misunderstood him?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dorfl
"Look to windwards" by Iain M. Banks.
He never really said it outright but I think that some of what he said should imply it.
What he said was that there is no absolute "now", so that if even if something seems (in this case it "seems" because my intuitive understanding of the world says that this should be the case, not because of anything involving different reference-points) to have happened a light-year away from me a year ago, it actually is "now" for me.

Gleah. I normally have more respect for Banks than this; something that happened a light-year away from you a year ago happened a year ago, almost by definition. He's getting poetic.

But he's correct to some degree. DIfferent people (in different reference frames) will have different observations of how time and space work.

A "classic" example is dropping a long board in front of Ms. Bright. Are you familiar with her?

Punch (Dec. 19, 1923): 591. [Unattributed]
There was a young lady named Bright,
whose speed was much faster than light.
She set off one day
in a relative way,
and returned on the previous night.


Seriously, though. Let's say I take a long board, hold it in the middle, and drop it in the center of a football pitch or something. From my perspective, both ends hit the ground at the same time.

However, Ms. Bright -- who can't actually move "faster" than light, but who can move at a very high fraction of it -- would instead see something different as she dashed by. She would see the "upstream" end hit the ground first, and the "downstream" end hit second. See this page (http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMstuff/C9A1.html) and the attached animation for an example and explanation.

But this means that if you could "teleport" in zero time (relative to me) from one end of the board to another, Ms. Bright would see you appear before you disappeared -- apparently travelling back in time (with respect to her).

And if you could then "teleport" in zero time relative to Ms. Bright back to your original location, you would appear, to everyone, to have gone back in time.

But the question involved here, of course, is why one teleport should take place in zero time relative to one person, and the second relative to another. In order to actually make a closed timelike loop (as we have here) requires the traveller to interact with several different reference frames in what I can only describe as an improbable fashion.

[Dr. Fendetestas]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I agree, this could be interesting.

The thing about "organic" being superior to "artificial" is one of those misconceptions, as its pointed out in the article. But, for me, one of the most interesting ones is related to "time travel".

I remember a lecture by Rolf Linkohr, member of the European Parliament and nuclear energy expert and supporter. He recalled talking to some people who worked or lived near a spa. They were very proud of its water, which had a lot of radon. They were, however, strongly against nuclear energy, concerned about the radioactivity of the waste. He told them that a bottle of their water had thousands of Bq (so regularly drinking the water, which was of course perfectly safe, would cause them to absorb much more radioactivity than living next to radioactive waste). To this a member of the audience, an M.D., said: 'ah, but that is natural radioactivity'.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Metullus
Actually I have the whole problem worked out, but I'm too busy planning my class reunion to patent it.

Maybe in January, after the hoildays, but before the February Sweeps, I'll have time.

Not a problem. Simply build the device in February, then come back in time to now and tell us about it.

I look forward to reading about it.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Dorfl
You're right, I confused "monkeys" and "primates".

Obviously you need to spend more time around the Librarian to stop confusing the two. :D

(I take it that with that username, you should easily spot my reference.)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Not a problem. Simply build the device in February, then come back in time to now and tell us about it.

I look forward to reading about it.
Hmmmmm.

Okay, that makes sense. So, uhhh, okay, I got it.

So, since I don't have it done now, it must mean I'll be too busy in February.

Damn, and I know I can make a fortune with this. If I can just find the time.

[Ririon]

Originally posted by Dorfl
Because the speed of light is absolute, meaning that light moves at the speed c according to any reference point.
The reason that this in not contradictory (since light travelling at c away from both an object we consider stationary* and an object we consider moving seems highly paradoxical) is that time moves more slowly for you the faster you move, meaning that the light can travel away from both a stationary and a moving object at 299.792.458* meters per second because a second is longer for the moving object than the stationary one.

Or so I think anyway, there may be some length-contraction and stuff involved as well.

*The theory of General Relativity says that we cannot talk about "stationary" and "moving" objects, only object we use as reference points and objects that move in relation to them.
*For some reason that number has stuck in my memory.

Without going into warp-drive and time-travel-stuff, or even checking your arguments (it's been a long time since my relativity classes) this is the special theory of relativity. Not the general one. The general theory of relativity is the one where gravity bends space and warps time and all that kind of cool stuff...

[Dorfl]

Originally posted by drkitten
In order to actually make a closed timelike loop (as we have here) requires the traveller to interact with several different reference frames in what I can only describe as an improbable fashion.
Is it impossible or merely improbable?
Since if it is merely improbable it should still be possible to do, and therefore make it possible to cause paradoxes, which should make FTL-travel an impossibility.
Originally posted by Hawk one
Obviously you need to spend more time around the Librarian to stop confusing the two.
:D
Originally posted by Ririon
Without going into warp-drive and time-travel-stuff, or even checking your arguments (it's been a long time since my relativity classes) this is the special theory of relativity. Not the general one.
Hm...
:book:
Damn! you're right:).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dorfl
Is it impossible or merely improbable?
Since if it is merely improbable it should still be possible to do, and therefore make it possible to cause paradoxes, which should make FTL-travel an impossibility.

Well, we know it's at least improbable.

I don't think we have actual proof that paradoxes are impossible (that's a philosophical position, not a scientific one -- what sort of empirical evidence would you gather for it?), and a number of top-flight physicists (Hawking among them, IIRC) have suggested that there are other principles in play that prevent FTL paradoxes without actually ruling out FTL. (The "many worlds" interpretation, sometimes referred to as "the Trousers of Time" is one of the best known -- the idea that close timelike loops "really" just result in the creation/discovery of a parallel universe. In this universe, your grandfather didn't die. In that one, he did. But until you actually create a closed timelike loop, you may still be able to go FTL within this one.)

[Ririon]

Originally posted by Dorfl
Hm...
:book:
Damn! you're right:).

Yeay me! :)

Just get used to nitpickers on this forum...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

BronzeDog said:
I would at this point like to deny any possible allegations that this person represents the typical art student. At least I hope not. Got lucky enough to get my BA in art without encountering any big woos.
I did not mean to offend artists in general. :D

Quinn said:
Well??? Did you take her up on it?
She can easily find out when I was born.


~~ Paul

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why couldn't you break the light barrier?
Because it receeds away from you as you approach it. No matter what speed you are doing, the light barrier always appears to be 300,000 km/sec faster than what speed you are doing.

[aggle-rithm]

I was sharing a brain puzzle with a co-worker in the IT department, asking what would be the fastest way to determine which of eight ball bearings was heavier than the others, using a two-pan scale. He said, in all seriousness:

"Drop them all, and the one that hits the ground first is heaviest."

Left me speechless.

[jmercer]

Which explains why I'm an IT Director instead of a worker. :D

Lemmee see... hm. Assuming that the heavier ball bearing weighs more than one bearing (obviously!) but less than two bearings...

Put 4 into one tray and 4 in the other. Empty the lighter tray.

Of the remaining bearings, place two into the now empty tray.

Again, empty the lighter tray.

Shift one of the two remaining bearings into the empty tray; the heaviest one will be revealed... three measurements to the answer.

If the heavy bearing is equal to two of the others, it becomes a bit more interesting. :)

[Terry]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
I was sharing a brain puzzle with a co-worker in the IT department, asking what would be the fastest way to determine which of eight ball bearings was heavier than the others, using a two-pan scale. He said, in all seriousness:

"Drop them all, and the one that hits the ground first is heaviest."

Left me speechless.

Assuming they are the same size, this sounds right. Same size (and shape) means same aerodynamic drag coefficient, but the heavier one has more weight. So its terminal velocity (the speed at which aero drag equals weight) should be higher. Of course, you may have to drop them from a ways up to be able to easily see the difference. N.B. won't work on the moon or other airless bodies.

--Terry.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Terry
Assuming they are the same size, this sounds right. Same size (and shape) means same aerodynamic drag coefficient, but the heavier one has more weight. So its terminal velocity (the speed at which aero drag equals weight) should be higher. Of course, you may have to drop them from a ways up to be able to easily see the difference. N.B. won't work on the moon or other airless bodies.

--Terry. You're kidding ?


( Aren't you ? :confused: )

[Terry]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You're kidding ?


( Aren't you ? :confused: )

presumeably you don't think parachutes work?

--Terry.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Terry
presumeably you don't think parachutes work?

--Terry. Did I miss the part about putting parachutes on the ball bearings to see which one was the heaviest ?

[Terry]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Did I miss the part about putting parachutes on the ball bearings to see which one was the heaviest ?

A parachutist with his chute stowed weighs the same as with it open. Do they therefore fall at the same speed?

--Terry.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Terry
A parachutist with his chute stowed weighs the same as with it open. Do they therefore fall at the same speed?

--Terry. How did we get here, from someone suggesting they determine the heaviest of a group of ball bearings by dropping them, and you actually suggesting it would work ?


P.S.

To answer your question ... Yes .. In a vacuum ( along with the Qeen Mary ) .

[Terry]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How did we get here, from someone suggesting they determine the heaviest of a group of ball bearings by dropping them, and you actually suggesting it would work ?

Because of air resistance. If the balls have the same size, they have the same drag as a function of speed. The heavier one will go faster before the aerodynamic drag matches the force due to gravity. Therefore the heavier one will hit the ground first, assuming we aren't on an airless body. Furthermore, if you drop them from 20,000' it'll probably hit the ground a lot ahead.

--Terry.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
Which explains why I'm an IT Director instead of a worker. :D

Lemmee see... hm. Assuming that the heavier ball bearing weighs more than one bearing (obviously!) but less than two bearings...

Put 4 into one tray and 4 in the other. Empty the lighter tray.

Of the remaining bearings, place two into the now empty tray.

Again, empty the lighter tray.

Shift one of the two remaining bearings into the empty tray; the heaviest one will be revealed... three measurements to the answer.

If the heavy bearing is equal to two of the others, it becomes a bit more interesting. :)

1. Put 3 bearings in each tray. If both trays weigh the same go to 2. If the trays are different weights, go to 3.

2. Empty both trays. Put one of the remaining 2 bearings in each tray. The heavy one will be apparent.

3. Empty both trays. Take two of the heavier group of three and place one into each of the trays. If they are equal weights, the remaining bearing (of the heavier 3) is the overwieght one. Otherwise it is the heavier of the two being weighed.

Two weighings.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Terry
Because of air resistance. If the balls have the same size, they have the same drag as a function of speed. The heavier one will go faster before the aerodynamic drag matches the force due to gravity. Therefore the heavier one will hit the ground first, assuming we aren't on an airless body. Furthermore, if you drop them from 20,000' it'll probably hit the ground a lot ahead.

--Terry. Like I said before.. I hope you're kidding ...


You're not by chance the co-worker referred to in the post are you ?

[Terry]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Like I said before.. I hope you're kidding ...


You're not by chance the co-worker referred to in the post are you ?

no, I'm not the co-worker, and no I'm not kidding - except to the extent that I'm ignoring that the effect is too small to be practical. What exactly is the problem? Do you not believe that the terminal velocity of a body in a fluid depends on its weight (amongst other things)?

--Terry.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Terry
no, I'm not the co-worker, and no I'm not kidding - except to the extent that I'm ignoring that the effect is too small to be practical. What exactly is the problem? Do you not believe that the terminal velocity of a body in a fluid depends on its weight (amongst other things)?

--Terry. Excuse me !!

You just said:

Because of air resistance. If the balls have the same size , they have the same drag as a function of speed. The heavier one will go faster before the aerodynamic drag matches the force due to gravity. Therefore the heavier one will hit the ground first ....


Anyone else out there ??? Is it just me ??

[Terry]

The terminal velocity is that at which the air resistance of a body matches its weight. Do you agree that a heavier body has a greater weight? Because we already specified that the balls are otherwise the same.

--Terry.

[Metullus]

Didn't Galileo settle this at Tower Pizza about 460+ years ago.

It was in all the papers at the time.

[Terry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

note the term "mg" in the equation. mg is otherwise known as the weight.

But apparently this is a lost cause...

--Terry.

[Ashles]

It does appear that Terry is correct.

Obviously it would not be a method for determining the weight in an everyday setting.

But as this page (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html) demonstrates:
If we have two objects with the same area and drag coefficient, like two identically sized spheres, the lighter object falls slower. This seems to contradict the findings of Galileo that all free falling objects fall at the same rate with equal air resistance. But Galileo's principle only applies in a vacuum, where there is NO air resistance and drag is equal to zero.


I doubt anything dropped from the tower at Pisa would reach Terminal Velocity.

[Kell]

I think this...

Originally posted by Terry
except to the extent that I'm ignoring that the effect is too small to be practical.

...is the bit that got lost in translation.

The point being that one would have to drop the ballbearings from really high up for terminal velocity to be reached and have an effect on their subsequent fall. Yes?

So...how many angels can dance on a ballbearing? :p

[Terry]

Originally posted by Kell
I think [small effect] is the bit that got lost in translation.

The point being that one would have to drop the ballbearings from really high up for terminal velocity to be reached and have an effect on their subsequent fall. Yes?


You don't have to reach terminal velocity for the heavy one to go faster. As soon as they start to move, it has the advantage.

But yeah, with ball bearings, it will take either a long drop or a fast camera to tell.

--Terry.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Metullus
1. Put 3 bearings in each tray. If both trays weigh the same go to 2. If the trays are different weights, go to 3.

2. Empty both trays. Put one of the remaining 2 bearings in each tray. The heavy one will be apparent.

3. Empty both trays. Take two of the heavier group of three and place one into each of the trays. If they are equal weights, the remaining bearing (of the heavier 3) is the overwieght one. Otherwise it is the heavier of the two being weighed.

Two weighings.

Nice! I just knew someone would have a better answer. :)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Ashles
It does appear that Terry is correct.

Obviously it would not be a method for determining the weight in an everyday setting.

But as this page (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html) demonstrates:


I doubt anything dropped from the tower at Pisa would reach Terminal Velocity.


I stand corrected..


My humble apologies to Terry..

[Freakshow]

A few that drive me crazy...

The use of the word "energy". Such as "This herb will give you energy. What? No, its not a stimulant." Really? Then WTF does it do to give me "energy"? Other uses annoy me, too: spiritual energy, "life force" energy (used to explain beliefs in ghosts), etc.

Confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". The anti-evolution crowd does this a lot.

The belief that anything "natural" is better than anything that isn't "natural". Umm...would that include cobra venom? It's natural.

[Terry]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I stand corrected..


My humble apologies to Terry..

Oh sure, you won't believe me, but you'll believe NASA. What do you think those guys are, rocket scientists? ;)

no apology necessary :)

--Terry.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Terry
...and no I'm not kidding - except to the extent that I'm ignoring that the effect is too small to be practical. What exactly is the problem?
--Terry.


The effect is too small to be practical.

Next topic! ;)

[Skepiroth]

Public misconceptions about science eh? Too many to list, and I don't want to rant. But for an example of the magnitude of misconception about science the public will buy into, this site takes the cake http://www.dhmo.org/. One of my goals for my senior year is to finally get my college's chapter of the ACS to hold a DHMO protest!

[Bronze Dog]

Recent thing that comes to mind that's closely related: A guy who seems to think that logical fallacies are ivory tower academia. Riiiiight. Ad homenim, AKA "Billy's a doodie-head! I'm not listening to him!" is a real high-level concept that only the high priests of PhD know anything about.

[Mid]

Thought I would update everyone on some of the responses the Bad Science column had:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1536986,00.html

I particularly liked this quote:

"Logic isn't real, you can prove anything you want with logic. It's meaningless."

I t reminded me of Homer Simpson’s belief about statistics.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Recent thing that comes to mind that's closely related: A guy who seems to think that logical fallacies are ivory tower academia. Riiiiight. Ad homenim, AKA "Billy's a doodie-head! I'm not listening to him!" is a real high-level concept that only the high priests of PhD know anything about.

A common response to logic is, "What are you? A lawyer?"

[DevilsAdvocate]

I asked her how, exactly, she thought that Newton could single-handedly change the fact that acceleration of a body is proportional to the force acting on it, divided by its mass?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian There's a confusion here between the way the world really is, and our theories describing that world. For any macroscopic state of affairs it seems to be possible to devise mutually incompatible theories utilising differing scientific entities which adequately describe such a state of affairs.

Now if I were that woman, that is what I would have said! :DPossibly this is a joke I didn't get. What would be a "mutually incompatible theory" that "adequately describes" acceleration of a body?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question "why can't you break the light barrier?" It only answers the question "why can't you break the light barrier by accelerating?"

A stable of the sci-fi thrillers that routinely break the light barrier do by some form of a doublespeak drive (think of the Falcon trying to "jump to hyperspace"), using some method other than simple acceleration, for example by bending space into some sort of topological nightmare or transitioning between universes where the laws of physics are different.

Actually it does because in your examples you don't break the light 'barrier' in local space-time.


My idea of a realistic star travel is either a gate system or a translocation drive.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Kell

She doesn't lack intelligence and had gotten quite incensed eariler when we were both browsing through the brick testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com) website: neither of us are really fans of organised religion.

Incensed over what? A pictoral representation of holy scriptures or the idea that people would follow holy scriptures that described God as such an a-hole.

p.s. I love the new book of Judges series.

[Ladewig]

You'll find some more here at Bad Science. (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html)

I once met a high school student whose teacher said that water can be found on the outside of a glass of ice water because glass is porous.

-- - -- --- -- - - -- -


Where is Paula Poundstone now that we need her?

Ms. Poundstone voiced the character Judge Stone on a short-lived, animated series called "Science Court" which examined scientific principles in a humorous yet informative way.

[Kell]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Incensed over what? A pictoral representation of holy scriptures or the idea that people would follow holy scriptures that described God as such an a-hole.

Oh definitely the latter. The Law ( which contains such illuminating guides for living as 'When To Stone Your Children' and 'How Long To Hang Somebody' ) and Epistles -> Instructions For Women got her particularly angry.

p.s. I love the new book of Judges series.

Yes, 'Four Massacres And A Wedding' is a particularly wry title :P
I think the most sobering image on the site is on the last page of 'Massacre at Shechem', also under Judges.

[DavoMan]

Although I never quite understood why dropping the earth onto a ball bearring took less time than dropping the moon onto a ball bearring.

Looking at it from that perspective tells me the mass of an object changes its acceleration.

[Kell]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Looking at it from that perspective tells me the mass of an object changes its acceleration.

Now that's a rather interesting spoke of conjecture in the wheel of assumption. Can someone elaborate on this? It's late and I'm no physicist, so when I try to think it through it makes my brian come out my ears.

[Skepiroth]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Although I never quite understood why dropping the earth onto a ball bearring took less time than dropping the moon onto a ball bearring.

Looking at it from that perspective tells me the mass of an object changes its acceleration.

From classical Newtonian physics:

Force (in general) =(mass[object])*acceleration
Force (due to gravity) = (G*(mass [object])*(mass [attracting body]))/(distance ^2)

if we only look at the force due to gravity, by substitution we get:

(mass[object])*acceleration = (G*(mass[object])*(mass[attracting body]))/(distance^2)

since the mass[object] occurs in the numerator of both sides of the equation, we can cancel it out and are left with:

acceleration = (G*mass[attracting body])/(distance^2); hence ignoring all other forces the acceleration of any object towards any attracting body is the same, regardless of the object's mass. However, as Terry pointed out, there are other forces here on Earth... due to the fact that we have an atomosphere. While the acceleration due to gravity may be constant, there is a counter force (think molecules that make up our atomosphere as a battery of machine guns shooting up at falling objects).

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Skepiroth
From classical Newtonian physics:

Force (in general) =(mass[object])*acceleration
Force (due to gravity) = (G*(mass [object])*(mass [attracting body]))/(distance ^2)

if we only look at the force due to gravity, by substitution we get:

(mass[object])*acceleration = (G*(mass[object])*(mass[attracting body]))/(distance^2)

since the mass[object] occurs in the numerator of both sides of the equation, we can cancel it out and are left with:

acceleration = (G*mass[attracting body])/(distance^2); hence ignoring all other forces the acceleration of any object towards any attracting body is the same, regardless of the object's mass. However, as Terry pointed out, there are other forces here on Earth... due to the fact that we have an atomosphere. While the acceleration due to gravity may be constant, there is a counter force (think molecules that make up our atomosphere as a battery of machine guns shooting up at falling objects).

A bit unclear.

The mass of the attracting body, as you put it, still applies...a heavier attracting body does affect the acceleration.

The acceleration imparted to any two bodies attracted by a third mass is iddentical, although the mass that they are moving towards will influence the speed. An asteroid falling to Jupiter will be accelerated more than an asteroid falling to Earth. Likewise, the Earthbound rock is accelerated more than a Moonbound one.

The problem with the "drop two planets on a ball bearing" question is one of reference frames. You're using the planet as a reference frame to determine distance moved by the ball bearing, while using the the ball bearing as a stationary reference for determining the acceleration imparted to the planet. To make the equations work, you have to refigure your force and acceleration equations using the distance the planet moves towards the ball bearing for all calculations. Basically, you have to maintain a refence point as either object one or object two (attracting body or object). From a third reference point the masses of both objects become important, as both can be seen to move towards each other. This is the more accurate picture, but considering the tiny distances the Earth moves when an apple falls, it can be safely ignored. Also, most calculations are primary concerned with impacting Earth, so the Earth is used as a stable reference point (even though it actually moves).

To simplify, the mass of an object does affect how much acceleration that object imparts to any other object attracted to it. However, it does not affect the acceleration imparted to it when attracted to another object. In other words, all objects fall to Earth at the same acceleration (baring outside influences), but a heavier planet will acclerate faster while a smaller planet accelerates slower.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by DavoMan
Although I never quite understood why dropping the earth onto a ball bearring took less time than dropping the moon onto a ball bearring.

Looking at it from that perspective tells me the mass of an object changes its acceleration.

From that perspective, it's because the Earth which you are dropping is surrounded by this squishy coating of gas which pushes against the ball and slows the earth's descent.

Ow. My brain hurts now.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
From that perspective, it's because the Earth which you are dropping is surrounded by this squishy coating of gas which pushes against the ball and slows the earth's descent.

Ow. My brain hurts now.

From the perspective of the ball, true. From the perspective of, say, the Moon, atmospheric resistance is but a small factor in the speed of the Earth's descent. Not as small as the Psi effect, but pretty durn small.

Sorry to hear about your brain. A good soak in Epsom salts should clear it right up.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
From that perspective, it's because the Earth which you are dropping is surrounded by this squishy coating of gas which pushes against the ball and slows the earth's descent.

Ow. My brain hurts now.

Actually, this has nothing to do with it. Even assuming the Earth had no atmosphere, you'd end up with the same result.

The problem, as I mentioned before, is that one is using the Earth and/or Moon as a point of reference to determine the distance the object moves due to attraction, then swapping frames and using the ball bearing as a stationary object to determine gravity and gravitic force. It doesn't work right.

If you figure the force exerted by the ball bearing on the two respective planets, and use that force to figure out an acceleration, the results will match (within margin of error).

Using the ball bearing as your pre-defined stationary reference, you can't figure the distance the ball bearing moves when determining distance and acceleration. You have to determine how far the ball bearing moves the planet. It's a matter of reference frames, in this instance, not a matter of air resistence or other external factors. The ball bearing imparts the same acceleration to both Earth and Moon...the problem is that it';s effects are swamped by those of the planetary bodies themselves.

[DavoMan]

Okay I don't wear a white coat so I'm not too good with the equations however I understand the principals.

If earth had no atmosphere, it would still take less time to drop the ball bearring onto the ground than if ya did it on the moon (make the earth & bearring crash into each other).

Ya see this is what I don't understand. If the refrence point is the earth, and falling bodies take equal time to hit the earth regardless of their mass,

then why does it take longer for earth to fall onto planet ball bearring than it takes moon to fall onto planet ball bearring?

To help with this perspective, amagine a tiny me standing on a ball bearring in space holding up an earth & moon & then letting them go. Wacky I know, but you get the point.

I understand the earth moves a very slight ammount when newton drops an apple. I don't want to ignore this effect. Ignoring is silly.

Also, quoting an equation based on the principal is not itself evidence of the principal in the real world.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DavoMan

Ya see this is what I don't understand. If the refrence point is the earth, and falling bodies take equal time to hit the earth regardless of their mass,

Simple. Falling bodies do not take equal time to hit the earth regardless of their mass, but you'll never notice the difference with human-scale objects. If you drop a ball bearing, the ball bearing will accelerate towards the center of mass of the earth/bearing system, as will the earth. If you drop a bowling ball, the bowling ball will accelerate towards the center of mass of the earth/ball system, as will the earth.

The acceleration of the bearing and the ball will be identical (neglecting air resistance). The objects are sufficiently light relative to the earth that we can treat the earth as stationary (acceleration zero). But if we had an object heavy enough to give the earth measurable acceleration, it would hit the ground measurably before the ball bearing.

[Ashles]

So to pick a big example, if the earth and the sun were much nearer the sun, but 'suspended' (well, somehow held stationary), then we 'dropped' them - then the earth would hit the sun first.

Is that correct?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Ashles
So to pick a big example, if the earth and the sun were much nearer the sun, but 'suspended' (well, somehow held stationary), then we 'dropped' them - then the earth would hit the sun first.

Is that correct?

I don't see how the sun could get much closer to itself.

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Simple. Falling bodies do not take equal time to hit the earth regardless of their mass, but you'll never notice the difference with human-scale objects. If you drop a ball bearing, the ball bearing will accelerate towards the center of mass of the earth/bearing system, as will the earth. If you drop a bowling ball, the bowling ball will accelerate towards the center of mass of the earth/ball system, as will the earth.

The acceleration of the bearing and the ball will be identical (neglecting air resistance). The objects are sufficiently light relative to the earth that we can treat the earth as stationary (acceleration zero). But if we had an object heavy enough to give the earth measurable acceleration, it would hit the ground measurably before the ball bearing. This is exactly what I was looking at. I knew there was an assumption along the line with the 'regardless of the mass of the falling object' part, because it was inconsistent with colliding objects.

EG 3 planets in space. Baby planet, Momma planet and Daddy planet.
Momma planet and Baby planet will both collide into Daddy planet. But to say baby planet & momma planet have equal gravitational pull is incorrect, since baby planet will drift towards momma planet on its way down to daddy planet.

Who's been sleeping on my planet?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
I don't see how the sun could get much closer to itself.

clearly you've never done LSD. after 4 blotters, i can think of several ways in which the sun can.....ooooh, pretty butterflies! OH NO, THEY ARE EATING MY ARMS! HELP ME! ooooh, pretty butterflies!

[Ladewig]

One harmful misconception of how medicine works is the alarming number of educated people who refuse to sign organ donor cards because they believe doctors won't work as hard to save the people who have signed them.

That might not be precisely on topic for this thread, but I felt like venting today.

[Mid]

Originally posted by Ladewig
One harmful misconception of how medicine works is the alarming number of educated people who refuse to sign organ donor cards because they believe doctors won't work as hard to save the people who have signed them.

That might not be precisely on topic for this thread, but I felt like venting today.

Do you think this is a big problem? I always thought so many people didn't have organ donor cards because they were unconfortable with the idea that they are eventually going to die and the card sorts of brings this into focus.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Mid
Do you think this is a big problem? I always thought so many people didn't have organ donor cards because they were unconfortable with the idea that they are eventually going to die and the card sorts of brings this into focus.

I've meet people with college degrees and graduate degrees who hold the belief I described.

Here is a site (http://www.mnmed.org/publications/MnMed1999/March/9903news-views.cfm) which mentions the fear of less aggressive medical care for organ donors.

[ddobson]

I think the biggest public misconception is that scientific studies are generally inconclusive and contradictory. So many health and nutrition-related studies of popular interest result in press releases and media coverage, and so little of that coverage mentions the need for replication, or discusses the sample size, methodology, known limitations and assumptions of the study, etc. that I think the general public has no understanding of the notion of scientific rigor. There's a "study of the day" mentality in the popular media.

This has the unfortunate consequence of leading many to believe that scientific studies are no better than astrological predictions - neither appears to produce any real consensus in the public mind. It leaves the door open to the promulgation of pure claptrap on an "equal footing" with science. (Look at how far meteorology has come in the last few decades - but most people still make jokes about the weather reporter's presumed high failure rate.)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
I don't see how the sun could get much closer to itself.
Moon! The moon!

I meant the earth and the moon were dropped into the sun.


M-O-O-N. Laws! That spells Tom Cullen.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by ddobson
I think the biggest public misconception is that scientific studies are generally inconclusive and contradictory.

Im not sure about that, at least not for every scientific field. To just state one example: Eggs where supposed to be "bad", and now they are supposed to be "good". Scientifically, this is.

[ddobson]

I'm not saying that there aren't contradictory studies published - and that's a natural part of science. As we learn more about a field of study, especially regarding complex systems like nutrition and health, the criteria we use to make value judgments relevant to human conduct change.

But I think the uncertainty accompanying this type of study (e.g., as you note, eggs - good or bad for you?) gets extrapolated by the public to ALL fields of scientific inquiry, to the point where they think recent "science" has no real certainty about ANYTHING, or that the new discoveries it makes are ridiculously esoteric and can't be understood by the layman. And that opens the door to woo exploitation in many ways.

[DavoMan]

You just have bad energy. Let me fix that for you with this new device. First treatment is at a discount - only $39.95 plus energy fee.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Ashles

I meant the earth and the moon were dropped into the sun.



They were?!?

Man, am I out of it. I need to start watching the news. ;)

[ddobson]

Thinking about this thread, a memory came back to me from a few decades back that also illustrates a popular misconception about science - that of "scientist = wizard."

I'm vaguely recalling a mail-order advertisement placed in popular auto magazines promoting a special paint that would make cars invisible to police radar (a new and generally misunderstood law enforcement technique at the time.)

I also recall a follow-up news article (or maybe a Consumer Reports piece) when the promoter was prosecuted for mail fraud, having failed to deliver any sort of product to his eager customers. His stated defense was that he fully intended to deliver the product as advertised, but that he had had to place the ads first in order to raise money to "hire a scientist to develop the product."

I don't really know whether this was a passable idea coupled with genuine business and technological ignorance, or just a lame post hoc excuse by a knowing con artist. But at the time, it struck me as an extreme example of wishful thinking - "Science can do anything! If Science can detect speeding vehicles, I can also use Science to counter those measures! I'll be rich! Now if only I knew a Scientist..."

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by ddobson
Thinking about this thread, a memory came back to me from a few decades back that also illustrates a popular misconception about science - that of "scientist = wizard."

I'm vaguely recalling a mail-order advertisement placed in popular auto magazines promoting a special paint that would make cars invisible to police radar (a new and generally misunderstood law enforcement technique at the time.)

I also recall a follow-up news article (or maybe a Consumer Reports piece) when the promoter was prosecuted for mail fraud, having failed to deliver any sort of product to his eager customers. His stated defense was that he fully intended to deliver the product as advertised, but that he had had to place the ads first in order to raise money to "hire a scientist to develop the product."

I don't really know whether this was a passable idea coupled with genuine business and technological ignorance, or just a lame post hoc excuse by a knowing con artist. But at the time, it struck me as an extreme example of wishful thinking - "Science can do anything! If Science can detect speeding vehicles, I can also use Science to counter those measures! I'll be rich! Now if only I knew a Scientist..."
I'm suddenly reminded of a spammail advertising some magic spray to make your car's lisence plates unphotographable. I don't recall exactly, but I'm presuming they meant in a way that doesn't involve obscuring it to the human eye as well.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by ddobson
"Science can do anything! If Science can detect speeding vehicles, I can also use Science to counter those measures! I'll be rich! Now if only I knew a Scientist..."

I think it was Carl Sagan in "Demon-Haunted World" that wrote about the ridiculousness of "directing" science to make discoveries -- he was speaking specifically about the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative. Serendipity often plays a major role, with a scientist messing around in his garage finding something he didn't expect. Other scientists pick up on this discovery and make something useful out of it. No one "set out" to create antibiotics, or radio, or any number of other discoveries.

[DavoMan]

Yeah it seems most great discoveries were by accident. Like when I discovered the JREF :P

[mayday]

Have you ever seen a creative scientist? Scientists must be some of the most outdated followers there are. They only know how to go by what some guy who *was* creative found(like Newton or Da Vinci or Franklin) and build on what they discovered. Scientists today couldn't discover anything new if they had a gun pointed at them, because they are so hung up on proving how scientific they are by following what some other guy has already proven a long time ago, and maybe they can add a wee bit to it now and then, and they think they are the true free thinkers and worldly people, and they laugh at and mock the truly creative scientists who are acually trying to contribute to humanity by researching and looking for answers about things that are unkown (like ghosts and life after death).
Just because you can work a math problem to figure out that A+B=C, and sometimes you can make A+B+something else if you twist it aroudn a little...THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A SCIENTIST!
The real scientists are those going where no man has gone before. And woe to you nay sayers, even "wordly" men like Thomas Edison believed communication with the deceased was possible, and intended to use his inventions to prove this, but as with us all, he could only accomplish so much in life. Too bad we don't have more free thinkers to pick up where he left off.

[AWPrime]

mayday,

I think that you are confusing the word scientists instead of inventors. There is a big difference between the two types.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday
[B]Scientists today couldn't discover anything new if they had a gun pointed at them, because they are so hung up on proving how scientific they are by following what some other guy has already proven a long time ago, and maybe they can add a wee bit to it now and then....

I would be interested if you could provide any support for this claim.

Sorry I didn't include your entire run-on sentence in the quote.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday

The real scientists are those going where no man has gone before. And woe to you nay sayers, even "wordly" men like Thomas Edison believed communication with the deceased was possible, and intended to use his inventions to prove this, but as with us all, he could only accomplish so much in life.

Very true. He could only accomplish what was possible to accomplish, and this would be true even if he lived to be a million.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by mayday
Thomas Edison believed communication with the deceased was possible, and intended to use his inventions to prove this, but as with us all, he could only accomplish so much in life. Too bad we don't have more free thinkers to pick up where he left off.
Oh yeah, a shortage of free thinkers is a big problem, all right.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by mayday
Just because you can work a math problem to figure out that A+B=C, and sometimes you can make A+B+something else if you twist it aroudn a little...THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A SCIENTIST!

Admit it, you got your nursing degree in a third world country. It's a shame that someone who supposedly has so much responsibility for caring for other people using the very discoveries made by real scientists has absolutely no understanding of how science works.

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

A Scientist is someone who uses the (*gasp*) Scientific Method and subjects his or her research and findings to review by his peers.

Oh, and they typically have a good education and background in the subjects they work on.


The real scientists are those going where no man has gone before. And woe to you nay sayers, even "wordly" men like Thomas Edison believed communication with the deceased was possible, and intended to use his inventions to prove this, but as with us all, he could only accomplish so much in life. Too bad we don't have more free thinkers to pick up where he left off.

For thousands of years of human history, all the way back to Gilgamesh, humans have been trying to prove life after death.

It hasn't happened yet, and all evidence tends to point to the fact that it won't happen at any point before we're replaced by biomechanical roaches.

Don't breed.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by mayday
The real scientists are those going where no man has gone before. Quite so. And the fraudulent woowoo pseudoscientists are those who windily boast and brag about how they're going to go where no man has gone before, 'cos they're so "open minded", but never, ever produce any results whatsoever.

[mayday]

Originally posted by Phrost
Admit it, you got your nursing degree in a third world country. It's a shame that someone who supposedly has so much responsibility for caring for other people using the very discoveries made by real scientists has absolutely no understanding of how science works.

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

A Scientist is someone who uses the (*gasp*) Scientific Method and subjects his or her research and findings to review by his peers.

Oh, and they typically have a good education and background in the subjects they work on.



For thousands of years of human history, all the way back to Gilgamesh, humans have been trying to prove life after death.

It hasn't happened yet, and all evidence tends to point to the fact that it won't happen at any point before we're replaced by biomechanical roaches.

Don't breed.

Well, science (with all its gobbeldy goop) hasn't figured out how to disprove life after death, either. This strikes me as funny.

I got my nursing degree from a very respectable (American) school, thank you.

Don't breed? Funny you should mention this, as breeding has been on my mind a lot, lately. Though I have three children I dont feel my life will be complete without having at least one more. And with only one man. The only way I will ever breed again is with one man named Neil Young. As a matter of fact I have written him and his wife a very compelling letter about why he should donate sperm to me (because he would give a beautiful soul a deserving chance at a beautiful and fulfilling life on Earth). Of course, I release Mr. Young from all financial responsibility for the child.
I want this baby very badly. I have even thought of using witchcraft to steer him into thinking my way.
I'm sorry, but hopefully I will breed again.

[Jorghnassen]

Let me interrupt this escalating flaming with a humorous quote from a classic Simpsons episode:


Marge: Homer, there's a man here who thinks he can help you!
Homer: Batman?
Marge: No, he's a scientist.
Homer: Batman's a scientist.
Marge: It's not Batman!


We can now return to the original thread discussion or continue with a flamewar.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday
The only way I will ever breed again is with one man named Neil Young. As a matter of fact I have written him and his wife a very compelling letter about why he should donate sperm to me (because he would give a beautiful soul a deserving chance at a beautiful and fulfilling life on Earth). Of course, I release Mr. Young from all financial responsibility for the child.
I want this baby very badly. I have even thought of using witchcraft to steer him into thinking my way.
I'm sorry, but hopefully I will breed again.


Now, that was far more information than I wanted to assimilate today.

Thanks a lot.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by mayday but edited for the benefit of believers in flying pigs
Well, science (with all its gobbeldy goop) hasn't figured out how to disprove flying pigs, either. This strikes me as funny.Don't breed? Funny you should mention this, as breeding has been on my mind a lot, lately. Though I have three children I dont feel my life will be complete without having at least one more. And with only one man. The only way I will ever breed again is with one man named Neil Young. As a matter of fact I have written him and his wife a very compelling letter about why he should donate sperm to me (because he would give a beautiful soul a deserving chance at a beautiful and fulfilling life on Earth). Of course, I release Mr. Young from all financial responsibility for the child.
I want this baby very badly. I have even thought of using witchcraft to steer him into thinking my way.
I'm sorry, but hopefully I will breed again. Seek psychiatric help.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by mayday
Well, science (with all its gobbeldy goop) hasn't figured out how to disprove life after death, either. This strikes me as funny.

Really? It shows me that insults aside, you really don't understand how science works.

The burden of proof is on those who are claiming something is true. Prove there isn't an invisible pink ninja standing next to you.

Go on, prove it.


I got my nursing degree from a very respectable (American) school, thank you.

Can you tell me which one it was? They might be interested to know that someone went through their program without learning anything about Science.

Or did the "Nursing School" you attended teach classes on using leeches and bloodletting?


Don't breed? Funny you should mention this, as breeding has been on my mind a lot, lately. Though I have three children I dont feel my life will be complete without having at least one more. And with only one man. The only way I will ever breed again is with one man named Neil Young. As a matter of fact I have written him and his wife a very compelling letter about why he should donate sperm to me (because he would give a beautiful soul a deserving chance at a beautiful and fulfilling life on Earth). Of course, I release Mr. Young from all financial responsibility for the child.
I want this baby very badly. I have even thought of using witchcraft to steer him into thinking my way.
I'm sorry, but hopefully I will breed again.

I threw up a little in my mouth reading that.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by mayday
Well, science (with all its gobbeldy goop) hasn't figured out how to disprove life after death, either. This strikes me as funny.

Clue: Disproving a negative.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Clue: Disproving a negative.

We get that, I don't think he/she/he-she understands why that minor tidbit is important.

[mayday]

Originally posted by Phrost
Really? It shows me that insults aside, you really don't understand how science works.

The burden of proof is on those who are claiming something is true. Prove there isn't an invisible pink ninja standing next to you.

Go on, prove it.



Can you tell me which one it was? They might be interested to know that someone went through their program without learning anything about Science.

Or did the "Nursing School" you attended teach classes on using leeches and bloodletting?



I threw up a little in my mouth reading that.

I went to Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN.

BTW, did you know they *still* use leech therapy? Even in state of the art hospitals like Vanderbilt!
I even remember questions on my NCLEX pertaining to medicinal herbs in therapy, how dark ages can we get? :D

[athon]

Originally posted by mayday
I went to Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN.

BTW, did you know they *still* use leech therapy? Even in state of the art hospitals like Vanderbilt!
I even remember questions on my NCLEX pertaining to medicinal herbs in therapy, how dark ages can we get? :D

No, they don't 'still' use leech therapy. Leeches were once used widely to reduce the amount of blood in the body in an effort to balance humours. They are now used to remove blood from areas of potential swelling and bruising.

They still use leeches, but for very different reasons.

Athon

[Phrost]

Originally posted by mayday
I got my nursing degree from a very respectable (American) school, thank you.

Originally posted by mayday
I went to Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN.


Here's their website (notice the high quality layout and design):

http://nursing.web.mtsu.edu/

And here's the graduating class of 2004:

http://amranshriners.us/images/photos/hillbillies/hillbillies-c.gif

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday
Well, science (with all its gobbeldy goop) hasn't figured out how to disprove life after death, either. This strikes me as funny.


Isn't it cool how we went off-topic, then came back full circle and are again taking about misconceptions of scientific topics?

This is a great example of a common misconception, that science is able to disprove unscientific things. The fact that the "survival hypothesis" is unfalsifiable is why it is of no interest to science in the first place. That's what makes it "unscientific".

Of course, I seriously doubt Mayday could ever understand this, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[mayday]

Originally posted by Phrost
We get that, I don't think he/she/he-she understands why that minor tidbit is important.

I understand fully. It's just funny to watch you folks get pissy when someone brings that up.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday
I understand fully. It's just funny to watch you folks get pissy when someone brings that up.

Aaaaaaand we're back off-topic. :(


Edited to add: I went back and looked at the responses to your original post, and it doesn't appear that anyone got pissy.

Better luck next time.

[Bronze Dog]

You mean about us being unable to prove a negative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof) Of course we complain. Legitimately: Talk of negative proof is one of the propaganda techniques of woos. As skeptics, we know we can't prove a negative. No one can. It's logically impossible, except, perhaps, in the field of mathematics.

That's what skepticism is about: It's easier to disprove a negative, so we assume the negative until it's disproven. If something exists, it only takes one quality piece of evidence for us to change our minds.

Pity that, at least in my experience, many paranormal advocates are unwilling to even point to quality evidence because they've already assumed we're unconvincible, despite never putting that hypothesis to the test.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by mayday
I understand fully. It's just funny to watch you folks get pissy when someone brings that up.
Far funnier is to watch you folks declaim while demonstrating ignorance. It is abundantly clear that you don't get the point. Would you care to have a serious discussion about how and why science works or would you simply like to marginalize yourself further on this forum? Your choice. Look up the big words first to be sure you understand them before responding or ejaculating. Again, your choice. Ignorance is a simple and remediable condition. Stupidity is usually wilful and pitiable.

[casebro]

Many publicised medical studies include the phrase "significant improvement". But they are not talking about medical significanse, they are talking about statistical "significanse". In the world of statistics, "significant" only means "repeatable", in that the same results can be expected in the next similar study. A 2% comparative risk is NOT medically significant, but it may be "statistically significant" - to the statisticians.

But, as in somebody here's signiture" Medicine is all in the numbers", so to Dr's, 1% may be significant. Do the patients know they have a 99% chance of receiving a useless medicine?

[Beth]

Originally posted by casebro
Many publicised medical studies include the phrase "significant improvement". But they are not talking about medical significanse, they are talking about statistical "significanse". In the world of statistics, "significant" only means "repeatable", in that the same results can be expected in the next similar study. A 2% comparative risk is NOT medically significant, but it may be "statistically significant" - to the statisticians.

Minor nitpick: "Statistically significant" does not mean "repeatable". A statistically signficant study with a p-value of 0.02 (2%) means that there is only a 2% chance of getting results as extreme or more so due to chance alone. The p-value can be thought of as the probabillity that the results you got can be attributed to random chance. Thus, the lower the p-value, the less likely the results are due to chance alone and the more likely a repeat of the experiment will yield similar results. Generally, a p-value of 0.05 or less is considered to be statistically significant.

Beth

[Ashles]

Originally posted by mayday
I understand fully. It's just funny to watch you folks get pissy when someone brings that up.
Huh? You understand why your post was comepletely illogical, and for some reason you find it amusing when people point this out to you?

Do you also smear chocolate all over your face then find it funny when people point it out to you?

(I'm ignoring all the Neil Young nonsense as that particular joke has got a little old now.)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by casebro
Many publicised medical studies include the phrase "significant improvement". But they are not talking about medical significanse, they are talking about statistical "significanse". In the world of statistics, "significant" only means "repeatable", in that the same results can be expected in the next similar study. A 2% comparative risk is NOT medically significant, but it may be "statistically significant" - to the statisticians.

But, as in somebody here's signiture" Medicine is all in the numbers", so to Dr's, 1% may be significant. Do the patients know they have a 99% chance of receiving a useless medicine?

Huh? What? A 1% significance says there is only 1 chance in a hundred that the null hypothesis is rejected by chance. How you get to this "99% chance of receiving a useless medicine" claim is beyond me. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your reasoning?

[mayday]

Originally posted by Ashles
Huh? You understand why your post was comepletely illogical, and for some reason you find it amusing when people point this out to you?

Do you also smear chocolate all over your face then find it funny when people point it out to you?

(I'm ignoring all the Neil Young nonsense as that particular joke has got a little old now.)

My post was not illogical. Science knows so much, why can't science figure out something so common and simple...whether this is disproving a negative or not, science should have this answer by now.
Such as why we see lights at the end of tunnels when we die. This phenomenon is completely verifiable, yet no one can be sure why people see that tunnel (other than some theory about no O2 to the brain).
Most of you don't understand what role science plays in life. We have events occur everyday that defy science, but you think if we can't reproduce the results in some lab that these events were not real.

I don't smear chocolate all over myself but what people like you do on this board is one of you will poop, and the rest of you come and gather around the poop, and whichever of you pooped comes back and sits in the middle of the poop, and you are held in such high esteem by the others.

Jokes on you, Ashles. You should see the response.

[Fengirl]

This is not exactly a “misconception” of science, but I think the public at large sometimes reads the words “scientific research findings” and translates that as “the scientists’ personal opinions”.

This is from my own experience, so only anecdotal, but it illustrates what I mean.

Some years ago, I presented some research at an international conference, and the study was press-released, and subsequently widely reported in the national media. (It must have been a slow news week!). The study had indicated some possible gender differences in the area I was researching…and I actually got HATE MAIL from newspaper readers, because my findings were misinterpreted by them as implying all kinds of derogatory things about men! I even had some very snide things said about me by a vicious gossip columnist in one of the UK’s leading daily newspapers. WTF?! I had been incredibly careful with my words to reporters, explained that any conclusions were tentative, that replication was important, that more research would be useful, blah blah blah, the usual stuff -all to no avail. The press presented the most controversial angle possible.

The reporting of science in the mainstream media often leaves a lot to be desired. People with no background in science tend to miss the point that research findings can be interpreted in lots of different ways, that science moves slowly and incrementally, and that no particular study PROVES anything. Newspapers will print “Scientists find X” and the public (if they don’t happen to like the sound of X) will often respond in a knee-jerk way, demonizing the scientists.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by mayday
My post was not illogical. Science knows so much, why can't science figure out something so common and simple...whether this is disproving a negative or not, science should have this answer by now.
According to who? Why should science have this answer?

There is no evidence whatsoever for life after death, so anyone who assumes there is life after death is doing so from their own opinions.
How is science suposed to disprove that any more than the existence of the IPU?

You really do consistently display an abysmal understanding of science and logic Mayday.

Such as why we see lights at the end of tunnels when we die. This phenomenon is completely verifiable, yet no one can be sure why people see that tunnel (other than some theory about no O2 to the brain).
So there is no explanation for this phenomenenon other than the perfectly good explanations we actually have involving hypoxia, stress levels, brain neurochemistry, anaesthetic effects and perceptive and memory issues?

And you reject these out of hand because...

Oh sorry I forgot. Your mastery of logical deduction and scientific knowledge.

Most of you don't understand what role science plays in life. We have events occur everyday that defy science, but you think if we can't reproduce the results in some lab that these events were not real.
A quite astonishing level of irony is displayed by those two sentences being next to each other.

I don't smear chocolate all over myself but what people like you do on this board is one of you will poop, and the rest of you come and gather around the poop, and whichever of you pooped comes back and sits in the middle of the poop, and you are held in such high esteem by the others.
Is it actually your intention to sound like a mildly retarded 11 year old Mayday?
Or is this really the full extent of your ability to express yourself?

Jokes on you, Ashles. You should see the response.
The jokes on me because other people respond to your Neil Diamond nonsense...

Er yeah, okay Mayday. Brilliant. Well done. Swift would be proud of your wonderful usage of subtlety and satire.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by mayday
My post was not illogical. Science knows so much, why can't science figure out something so common and simple...whether this is disproving a negative or not, science should have this answer by now.
Whenever I hear someone claiming that there's no scientific answer for something, there usually is one.

Such as why we see lights at the end of tunnels when we die. This phenomenon is completely verifiable, yet no one can be sure why people see that tunnel (other than some theory about no O2 to the brain).
Oxygen deprivation sounds like the most reasonable answer to me. I'm sure there are other reasonable explanations. Cultural expectations influencing a hallucination is another I've heard.

Most of you don't understand what role science plays in life. We have events occur everyday that defy science, but you think if we can't reproduce the results in some lab that these events were not real.
Often, the events are real. Most people, however, seem to complain when someone comes up with a non-magical explanation.

I don't smear chocolate all over myself but what people like you do on this board is one of you will poop, and the rest of you come and gather around the poop, and whichever of you pooped comes back and sits in the middle of the poop, and you are held in such high esteem by the others.

Jokes on you, Ashles. You should see the response.
Funny, you seem to smell like poo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies) most of the time. We just point it out in a futile-seeming effort to get you to realize it.





...It seems Ashles also typed up some good responses while I was busy typing this.

[Nex]

Originally posted by mayday
My post was not illogical. Science knows so much, why can't science figure out something so common and simple...whether this is disproving a negative or not, science should have this answer by now. <snip>

Major nitpick:

You are a registered nurse, yes? And I assume you have your BSN?

If it is so important to you, perhaps it's high time you specialized in health/medical research and got the answer yourself. Nurses can actually do that, you know.

Science is not a person or organization -- you are a part of it every day in your profession. Don't complain if you're not willing to work for any answers yourself.

[casebro]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Huh? What? A 1% significance says there is only 1 chance in a hundred that the null hypothesis is rejected by chance. How you get to this "99% chance of receiving a useless medicine" claim is beyond me. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your reasoning?


Now you are confused, between a 1% decrease in the mortality, and the % of 'p' factor. Some studies show a minimal benefit of a proceess, like 12%, with a 'p' factor of .09%. The 'p' factor is the chance of repeatability, my 1% was a hypothetical benefit, not the 'p' factor. A different hypothetical: 12% could be considered 'significant' with the proper 'p' factor, but would not help 88% of the patients....so, would such a 'significant benefit' be worth the costs?

[mayday]

Originally posted by Nex
Major nitpick:

You are a registered nurse, yes? And I assume you have your BSN?

If it is so important to you, perhaps it's high time you specialized in health/medical research and got the answer yourself. Nurses can actually do that, you know.

Science is not a person or organization -- you are a part of it every day in your profession. Don't complain if you're not willing to work for any answers yourself.

Have you started writing care plans yet, Nex? Care plans work kind of like the scientific method, it's the same idea.

I think NANDA should add this dx to their list so I can assess many of the people here...Severe mental constipation d/t inability to have a sense of humor AEB crappy remarks toward free-thinkers on the JREF board.

I think that, for the most part, the jobs in health and medical research (other than doing the leg work) are for MSN's and PhD's...anyway, I believe I make more money working for agency in private duty than a lab...last week I grossed over $2000. Even though that was after six days (nights, actually) of working. Still, there aren't many jobs where you can make 2 grand in a week going to work barefoot kicked back on a couch watching tv and balancing your checkbook and doing crossword puzzles. I'm basically there to go give the ventilator machine a kick when it starts beeping (lol) or suction the patient when he gets too congested. Other than that I'm paid to be a couch potato. My worst night at a patient's home is better than the best night on a med. surg. floor. I have to say, though, two nights ago was rough, I was at a patient's house who had diarrhea...man, it was everywhere.

BTW, don't feel inadequate because you will be an ASN...ASN's and BSN's have to take the same licensing exam. It's just more likely that I will be your boss in the workplace.

[Nex]

Originally posted by mayday
Have you started writing care plans yet, Nex? Care plans work kind of like the scientific method, it's the same idea.
Again, I'll state that if you want these answers so badly, specialize in research and get them yourself or quit whining.

Originally posted by mayday
I think that, for the most part, the jobs in health and medical research (other than doing the leg work) are for MSN's and PhD's...
Someone stopping you from continuing your education? Or are you content waiting for someone else to do the research, because with your complaining you don't sound it.

Originally posted by mayday
... I'm paid to be a couch potato.
I'm embarrassed for you, really. :nope:

Originally posted by mayday
BTW, don't feel inadequate because you will be an ASN...ASN's and BSN's have to take the same licensing exam. It's just more likely that I will be your boss in the workplace.
Everyone starts somewhere. I don't feel inadequate because I know I am just starting my career. However, I would feel very inadequate if I were paid just to sit around and watch soaps.

Now, when I finish my education I'll be a CRNA. You see, I will actually attend grad school.

But please Mayday, don't feel inadequate because you're just a couch-potato BSN. It's just more likely I will be your boss someday. ;)

Then again, I'd never keep a nurse on who didn't do anything. I'd probably just fire your potato butt. :D

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by mayday
Science knows so much, why can't science figure out something so common and simple...whether this is disproving a negative or not, science should have this answer by now.


I hardly know how to respond to something like this. There are so many things wrong with this sentence I don't know where to start.

I sincerely hope you're pulling our leg here. I can't imagine you could spend any time on this forum and not assimilate what science is supposed to be about.

The good news is, we're back on topic! One of the most common misconceptions of science is that "science knows things".

Science doesn't know anything, it's a tool we use to find out about things. Your statement reminds me of a first-grader who, after the first day of class, says "School doesn't know everything. A whole day in class and I can barely read!"

Also, science does not claim to be able to find all the answers, it can only comment on observable things. It does not comment on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, for instance, because that is by definition not a scientific question. It doesn't mean the question is not worth pondering, it's just not science and never will be.

Finally, science CAN explain just about every so-called "paranormal" event that has ever been described. It's just that some people don't like the explanation.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
Finally, science CAN explain just about every so-called "paranormal" event that has ever been described. It's just that some people don't like the explanation.
I'm suddenly reminded of creationists claiming certain things about the Earth and life are unexplanable by evolution. Then I come up with a plausible (at least to me) explanation within thirty seconds of reading their whine.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by casebro
Now you are confused, between a 1% decrease in the mortality, and the % of 'p' factor. Some studies show a minimal benefit of a proceess, like 12%, with a 'p' factor of .09%. The 'p' factor is the chance of repeatability, my 1% was a hypothetical benefit, not the 'p' factor. A different hypothetical: 12% could be considered 'significant' with the proper 'p' factor, but would not help 88% of the patients....so, would such a 'significant benefit' be worth the costs?

The confusion is totally yours, casebro. You wrote "significanse" [sic]. You also describe this as repeatability. The "p" is not the repeatability. It is the descriptive significance level by which one rejects the null hypothesis. (That is, the confidence that your rejection did not occur by chance.) Before we go further you need to be clear about the definitions.

[casebro]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The confusion is totally yours, casebro. You wrote "significanse" [sic]. You also describe this as repeatability. The "p" is not the repeatability. It is the descriptive significance level by which one rejects the null hypothesis. (That is, the confidence that your rejection did not occur by chance.) Before we go further you need to be clear about the definitions.


I have no problem with your definition, it is the standard of
statistitions. Now quit nit-picking if you can't stick to the point. Which was that the term 'significant' as used by statistitions in these studies does NOT mean that there is overall, any reasonable medical benefit for most patients.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by casebro
I have no problem with your definition, it is the standard of
statistitions. Now quit nit-picking if you can't stick to the point. Which was that the term 'significant' as used by statistitions in these studies does NOT mean that there is overall, any reasonable medical benefit for most patients.

Nit-picking? Really? Let's go a bit further, then. What do you think the null hypothesis means in this context? How is its rejection not indicative of efficacity?

[mayday]

Originally posted by Nex
Again, I'll state that if you want these answers so badly, specialize in research and get them yourself or quit whining.


Someone stopping you from continuing your education? Or are you content waiting for someone else to do the research, because with your complaining you don't sound it.


I'm embarrassed for you, really. :nope:


Everyone starts somewhere. I don't feel inadequate because I know I am just starting my career. However, I would feel very inadequate if I were paid just to sit around and watch soaps.

Now, when I finish my education I'll be a CRNA. You see, I will actually attend grad school.

But please Mayday, don't feel inadequate because you're just a couch-potato BSN. It's just more likely I will be your boss someday. ;)

Then again, I'd never keep a nurse on who didn't do anything. I'd probably just fire your potato butt. :D

You won't get into CRNA school with an associate's degree (everybody and their brother wants to go to CRNA school and make the *big bucks*, lol) And, regardless of what you might think, just because you *might* be a CRNA this in no way gives you any authority over any nurses. All it gives you is the ability to work under a physician administering anesthesia, so don't get a big head just yet. In fact, there is no reason at all to get a big head over being a CRNA...even though that is literally YEARS away for you. In fact, for you to boast about "gonna" be a CRNA at this point in the game makes it sounds like you are buying pipe dreams. As of right now I qualify to go to nurse anesthetist school *if* I want to, which right now I don't...how far along are you in ASN school?

You would fire me for sitting on the couch? That is what they PAY ME TO DO. In case you don't know what private duty nursing is, you are paid to stay (usually 12 hour shifts) with a patient in their home, give then their medication, assist them to the bathroom, etc.. What do you expect a nurse sitter to do? Get up and dance?
Though I have to say, I have come to dread the case I am working now. With my ventilator patient I don't get to sleep, because that stupid ventilator goes off every 20 minutes for something or other, or since he is bedridden and naps all day he can't sleep at night so I have to fix him snacks at 2AM and of all things last night I had to clean up TWO BM's and I'm not good with BM's at all, it turns my stomach, much the same way emptying the cups on his suction machine does. So this case I have been working lately is basically just a pain in the assets, and the nocs are sooooooo long. So in my sleep deprived state it is no wonder through the night I'm staring into space (we have to have it dark so he can rest) I'm having strange thoughts dancing through my head like making it with a folk singer from 30+ yrs. ago.

[DavoMan]

If mayday there thinks there hasn't been scientific advances lately, perhaps he should open his eyes a little.

There have been major discoveries/inventions all over the globe. Like that kenetic fibre **** that moves via current put through it, and when moved it makes current. Being used for prostetic limbs, or being used to charge electric devices that are moved. Or printing out circuits from ye printer.

Thats one of a zillion things off the top of my head which can change the face of the world. I don't wanna see any more complaining about the lack of advancement in science.

[TheBoyPaj]

Yeah, but they're not invented by scientists. They're invented by radical free-thinkers like mayday.

Why, I bet she's working on an exciting new way of changing TV channels as we speak.

[Nex]

Originally posted by mayday
< petty rant snipped >
Or, you just can't take what you dish out. Wuss. :D

*ETA*

The original question still stands:

Why don't you go into research and do it yourself, instead of whining on about how the researchers "aren't doing it right"?