I... I really hate the stupidity of smart people.

[wolven7]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3639193.stm

So... They're testing Einsteins theories of drag on space time. My "science-fiction-loving" objections of the potential to distort that which we set out to observ, aside, there's an inherent flaw, here: The entire experiment hinges on a set of spheres and gyroscopes, meant to work as accuately as possible (they're already more accurate than anything else commercially produced), and measure this phenomenon.

They fabricated these spheres and gyros on Earth.

If you're working with the laws of physics to prove things within it, you are accepting their rules as your own, and are believing in them, so there's something you should fucking remember, damnit: You can never have a perfect sphere, in an environment containing gravity! I see an image of an imperfect measuring device, like a supposedly smooth ruler, on a yard of silk... Only there's an imperfection. And there's a snag. And then you've fucked that yard of silk up, for everyone. Only the yard of silk's the fucking Universe!

I don't know whether to laugh like an insane person, or yell. So a bit of both. HAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's some news about making DVDs out of paper:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3639585.stm

Comments

[okkitten.livejournal.com]

I love my friends like you. You always make me feel slightly retarded. LOL. I guess while I'm interested in science and the advancement of certain things, other things is just kinda "wuh?" for me. Hehehe

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You should see me when i get on my Big science kicks. I start talking about quanta, and valences, and various aspects of molecular chemistry... I'm a big big geek, sometimes :)

[momentai.livejournal.com]

And by 'sometimes', he means every day except one random one out of the year.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yes. Well.

perfect spheres aren't the goal

[(Anonymous)]

the more perfectly spherical the objects are, the easier it will be to observe the effects of frame dragging on the spheres as they revolve in an exact position, on an axis directed at a, relatively speaking, stationary object. You could fly a brick into space, and its mass would do the same thing if you spun it according to Einstein, but it would be hard to measure the results because it wouldn't spin very pretty.
A perfect sphere can no more be built in space than it can be on earth, the nature of atomic bonds ensures that. Earth's gravity will have an effect on it, sure, but not to the extent you seem to think. Also, the spheres were almost certainly constructed with the Earth's mass taken into account. The perfect sphere is due to the nature of matter, an abstraction from calculus, useful only as a model. The people who designed the experiment aren't stupid Wolven, this is one of the most important scientific experiments in years, and if it actually works, will prove an important postulate of General Relativity to not be so crazy after all.
-Patrick

Re: perfect spheres aren't the goal

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm a very big fan of "If we're going ot do something, for the love of Gods, let's do it right." Gravitational distortion, atomic movement, etc, aside, nothing is perfect except Everything. There is difference, and, in the end, everything interlocks and makes the Universe, but that's not the point here. All i'm saying is, no matter how much you try to account for anything, without ("outside of" and "Lacking") the closest to optimal conditions you can have, within reason, you will miss something. I happen to feel that "Within reason," can involve removing the (even if slight) distortion of Earth's gravity.

And i didn't say they were stupid, only that they were doing stupid things. Smart people do stupid things, a lot. And, conversely, stupid people do smart things... There's balance, in there...

Re: perfect spheres aren't the goal

[(Anonymous)]

True enough, the problem I see, is that there's no way for this experiment to prove General Relativity wrong. If they don't detect anything: "well crap, I guess we didn't make the spheres precise enough" and they'll start all over again, with even more insanely close to perfect balls to play with. It's a mad cycle of trying to prove something, which may or may not be true, with experiments, which do nothing to try and prove the theory wrong. I'm an ST guy myself anyhow, as you've probably noticed from prior arguments we've had about physics, but still, the experiment could be interesting, if they detect anything. Otherwise, what a waste of money, unless of course they have another 9 of those things, and are willing to sell them on e-bay as the most perfectly spherical billiards set on the planet.
-Patrick

Re: perfect spheres aren't the goal

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You've got a good point, and that, really, is my problem with a lot of the Scientific Community's methods, these days. The Experiments are set out to Prove things, not Test things. Means their minds are already made up, before hand, and they're not open to new data.

And, if they do end up having to sell them, i SO want one, for my birthday. :)