<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - Speed of light</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>Speed of light (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Alarm&amp;apos;s over. Albert got it right. Speed of light is still there with new neutron test:&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/16/not-so-fast-independent-measurement-shows-neutrinos-dont-exceed-speed-of-light/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20120316-another">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/16/not-so-fast-independent-mea...</a> nail in the coffin: neutrinos are not so speedy:-http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=10269</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=10269</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Speed of light (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It turns out that the widely publicized, revolutionary discovery of particles that travel faster than light was a mistake, or  &amp;quot;<em>an artifact of the measurement</em>&amp;quot; in the words of the project&amp;apos;s director, who hailed this as an example of &amp;quot;<em>perfect scientific integrity</em>&amp;quot;.-Dhw: <em>And that is how scientists make fools of themselves and then congratulate themselves on exposing their own incompetence. Week after week we are being bombarded with sensational new discoveries and theories which then fade as rapidly as they appeared. Before making their results public, doing their interviews, apparently justifying the billions of dollars being pumped into their activities, why don&amp;apos;t these folk wait till AFTER their &amp;quot;measurements&amp;quot; have been independently scrutinized and tested?</em>-ROMANSH: <em>Here&amp;apos;s my response when this all surfaced last year</em>-http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12030#p12030 -&amp;quot;<em>I wonder what the outcome will be - a completely new understanding or a better method of estimating errors</em>.&amp;quot;-Ah, the wisdom of the agnostic. An excellent response, if I may say so.-ROMANSH: <em>I don&amp;apos;t see the benefit in members of the general public crucifying scientists.</em>-I don&amp;apos;t see the benefit in scientists making their sensational and revolutionary discoveries public before they have been properly tested, and I don&amp;apos;t see the benefit in authoritative figures using misleading jargon to cloak their blunders. But hey, I wouldn&amp;apos;t call my complaint a &amp;quot;crucifixion&amp;quot;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9215</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9215</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>dhw</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Speed of light (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And that is how scientists make fools of themselves and then congratulate themselves on exposing their own incompetence. Week after week we are being bombarded with sensational new discoveries and theories which then fade as rapidly as they appeared. Before making their results public, doing their interviews, apparently justifying the billions of dollars being pumped into their activities, why don&amp;apos;t these folk wait till AFTER their &amp;quot;measurements&amp;quot; have been independently scrutinized and tested?&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt;  &amp;#13;&amp;#10;Here&amp;apos;s my response when this all surfaced last year&amp;#13;&amp;#10;http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12030#p12030-Was the announcement premature - well perhaps, was the retraction adequate, perhaps not.-But ultimately it is society that puts governments into place that by and large have been cutting funding to science organizations and making them &amp;quot;accountable&amp;quot; by publishing and being relevant and  inadvertently encouraging scientists to be publicity hounds. Gone are the days where Darwin could potter along for decades getting facts in place. And even then it was Wallace that finally spurred Darwin into publishing.-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;I don&amp;apos;t see the benefit in members of the general public crucifying scientists.</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9204</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9204</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>romansh</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Speed of light (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;quot;<em>The evidence is beginning to point towards the OPERA result being an artifact of the measurement</em>,&amp;quot; CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci said in a prepared statement. &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; An artifact of the measurement? I wonder how long it took him to prepare that statement. Why not just say they got it hopelessly wrong? One article that I read suggested the mistake was due to a faulty wire! These folk use language in much the same way as politicians, and on my personal trustometer their rating is rapidly approaching the same round figure.-That is why I read and interpret, with a good laugh at times.</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9198</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9198</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Speed of light (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DAVID: <em>Alarm&amp;apos;s over. Albert got it right. Speed of light is still there with new neutron test:</em>-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/16/not-so-fast-independent-mea...-&amp;quot;<em>Whatever the result, the OPERA experiment has behaved with perfect scientific integrity in opening their measurement to broad scrutiny, and inviting independent measurements,</em>&amp;quot; Bertolucci said. &amp;quot;<em>This is how science works.&amp;quot;</em>-And that is how scientists make fools of themselves and then congratulate themselves on exposing their own incompetence. Week after week we are being bombarded with sensational new discoveries and theories which then fade as rapidly as they appeared. Before making their results public, doing their interviews, apparently justifying the billions of dollars being pumped into their activities, why don&amp;apos;t these folk wait till AFTER their &amp;quot;measurements&amp;quot; have been independently scrutinized and tested?&amp;#13;&amp;#10; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;A couple of weeks ago, I tried to start a thread on <strong>Science and Language</strong>. How about this, then?&amp;#13;&amp;#10; &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&amp;quot;<em>The evidence is beginning to point towards the OPERA result being an artifact of the measurement</em>,&amp;quot; CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci said in a prepared statement. -An artifact of the measurement? I wonder how long it took him to prepare that statement. Why not just say they got it hopelessly wrong? One article that I read suggested the mistake was due to a faulty wire! These folk use language in much the same way as politicians, and on my personal trustometer their rating is rapidly approaching the same round figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9197</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9197</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>dhw</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Speed of light</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alarm&amp;apos;s over. Albert got it right. Speed of light is still there with new neutron test:-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/16/not-so-fast-independent-measurement-shows-neutrinos-dont-exceed-speed-of-light/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20120316</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9194</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=9194</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
