Philosophy Discussion Forums

. . . and one where "time runs backwards" no less.

Now this is the sort of conclusion (and subsequently the sort of article) that bugs the crap out of me:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/nasa-find ... rd-report/

What they actually detected, but didn't expect to detect, was evidence (just what evidence I don't know--it would have to be some sort of computer readout) of tau neutrinos. And that's it.

There was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos would have had to be coming "up" from the Earth rather than "down from space," which is well enough, although I'd like to know how we supposedly know this (how we supposedly know the directionality). But okay, we'd know that the Earth can produce or it can at least pass tau neutrinos.

And then there was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos, on the assumption that they're passing through the Earth rather than assuming that the Earth produced them, would have had to "change into some other type of particle before changing back again." Why? I have no idea. How would we know this?

And then there's the incoherent nonsense that somehow this implies "time running backwards" and implies a "parallel universe."

Sigh.

How about simply explaining that we detected data that we're interpreting as tau neutrinos when we didn't expect to find such data, and then explaining why we wouldn't expect to find evidence of tau neutrinos?

Science journalism typically sucks, and this is a perfect example. It popped on on my Twitter feed and I didn't even bother with it. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected!

This 'interpreting' is where most of the fault and flaws lie in most scientific data and findings. What the data shows cannot be disputed, but what people interpret and say the data shows can be so WRONG that it is laughable sometimes.

For example;
There is red shift. Therefore, "this means the Universe is expanding". And, if It is expanding, then it "must of been smaller", and therefore "it must of began", and "popped into existence from nothing".

There is different readings on clocks. Therefore, "this means time dilates".

The 'interpretations', themselves, and thus the therefore consequent so called "conclusion" is NOT as right and correct as most people believe they are. And, if the first conclusion/interpretation is WRONG to begin with, then all the following conclusions/interpretations can be just as WRONG also. Confirmation biases adds on to this tremendously.

When ALL of these 'interpretations' are looked at Honestly and OPENLY, then those that are WRONG can be clearly SEEN, and why they are so WRONG becomes clear also, especially when looked back to the original WRONG one, which caused all the other wrong ones to follow on from.

Terrapin Station wrote:How about simply explaining that we detected data that we're interpreting as tau neutrinos when we didn't expect to find such data, and then explaining why we wouldn't expect to find evidence of tau neutrinos?

Because that would result in fewer people reading the article and therefore lower ad revenues.

From the article:

"but now a cosmic ray detection experiment has found particles that could be from a parallel realm that also was born in the Big Bang, the Daily Star reported."

It cited the Daily Star as a source! The Daily Star is a British tabloid newspaper. It's the kind of tabloid that makes other tabloids (like The Sun) seem balanced, sensible and un-sensationalist. I think the New York Post pitches itself on about the same level as The Sun (both Murdoch papers. Don't get Greta started about that!).

So the first thing I'd want to do is look beyond publications whose main motivation is to create an eye-catching, click-bait headline (in Britain these headlines often have "boffin" in them, as in "Boffins PROVE that the moon is REALLY made of cheese!!!!") and examine what has actually been discovered, what has been said by the discoverers, the sense in which they meant it and, crucially, the expressions on their faces when they said it.

Terrapin Station wrote:There was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos would have had to be coming "up" from the Earth rather than "down from space," which is well enough, although I'd like to know how we supposedly know this (how we supposedly know the directionality). But okay, we'd know that the Earth can produce or it can at least pass tau neutrinos.

And then there was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos, on the assumption that they're passing through the Earth rather than assuming that the Earth produced them, would have had to "change into some other type of particle before changing back again." Why? I have no idea. How would we know this?

You could almost certainly fairly easily find a bit more about why they claim these things (and therefore be better placed to decide whether you agree with their reasoning) by researching a bit further than a story in the New York Post and Daily Star.

Obviously the best thing to do would be to get the story straight from the horse's mouth and look at the Cornell University paper published on the subject by principal ANITA investigator Peter Gorham. But I bet I'd have to pay for that.

The New York Post and Daily Star articles cite an article in New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... s-in-time/

That seems like a good start to me. Still the sensational "backwards in time" headline, but maybe more substance to the article? But it's behind a paywall. I guess that means it doesn't have quite the same commercial pressure to create sensational ad-revenue-increasing stories, but it also means that far fewer people are going to read it. One of the classic dilemmas of the "free press" eh?

So I googled "ANITA" (the acronym of the experiment). The first hit there, at first sight, looked like another Daily Star article. But it was actually a company selling lingerie. Wrong Anita.

So I googled "ANITA parallel universe" and hit this:

https://www.sciencealert.com/of-course- ... antarctica

At first glance, that seems to pour a welcome bucket of cold water on all the excitement. I'll have a read.

(Actually, I'll read it later. First I'll just double-check that lingerie website to make absolutely sure it doesn't mention parallel universes and things going backwards in time and stuff.)

I've read the article that came up when I googled "ANITA parallel universe" now.

Here's an extract:

As Gorham, who is the principal investigator of ANITA, told ScienceAlert, "we have encountered a small number of anomalies in our data, and once we have exhausted all of the possible explanations within the Standard Model of physics, only then is it time to consider other ideas that push those boundaries - we are really not there yet, certainly not at the point where parallel universes are necessary!"

Another:

"In this case, one or more journalists have evidently moved ahead with an article which was not verified, and for reasons which are not clear, have ascribed research and papers to us which we never wrote, and theories, such as those involving parallel universes, which neither we nor our collaborators hypothesized about or discussed in any publication before these results were attributed to our experiment," says Gorham.

"This is one of the reasons that scientific advances proceed by a more measured process, through peer review and verification by other investigators."

He says "for reasons which are not clear". I think they're pretty clear.

If I was the editor of a publication which is reliant on ad revenue to survive, I wouldn't run with the headline:

"We have encountered a small number of anomalies..."

I'd run with:

"Boffins PROVE that parallel universes make time run BACKWARDS! And sex!"

And I might add a picture of one of those clocks whose hands go anti-clockwise falling into an artist's representation of a black hole.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 4:47 am I've read the article that came up when I googled "ANITA parallel universe" now.

Here's an extract:

As Gorham, who is the principal investigator of ANITA, told ScienceAlert, "we have encountered a small number of anomalies in our data, and once we have exhausted all of the possible explanations within the Standard Model of physics, only then is it time to consider other ideas that push those boundaries - we are really not there yet, certainly not at the point where parallel universes are necessary!"

Another:

"In this case, one or more journalists have evidently moved ahead with an article which was not verified, and for reasons which are not clear, have ascribed research and papers to us which we never wrote, and theories, such as those involving parallel universes, which neither we nor our collaborators hypothesized about or discussed in any publication before these results were attributed to our experiment," says Gorham.

"This is one of the reasons that scientific advances proceed by a more measured process, through peer review and verification by other investigators."

He says "for reasons which are not clear". I think they're pretty clear.

If I was the editor of a publication which is reliant on ad revenue to survive, I wouldn't run with the headline:

"We have encountered a small number of anomalies..."

I'd run with:

"Boffins PROVE that parallel universes make time run BACKWARDS! And sex!"

And I might add a picture of one of those clocks whose hands go anti-clockwise falling into an artist's representation of a black hole.

Don't forget to portray Anita as a half-naked woman.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 3:11 am I think the New York Post pitches itself on about the same level as The Sun (both Murdoch papers. Don't get Greta started about that!).

If Greta isn't allowed to rant, perhaps I could rant in her place? Murdoch and his billionaire cronies are the source of most Bad Things in the world. Time to sharpen the blades on our guillotines, don't you think?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 3:11 am

Terrapin Station wrote:How about simply explaining that we detected data that we're interpreting as tau neutrinos when we didn't expect to find such data, and then explaining why we wouldn't expect to find evidence of tau neutrinos?

Because that would result in fewer people reading the article and therefore lower ad revenues.

From the article:

"but now a cosmic ray detection experiment has found particles that could be from a parallel realm that also was born in the Big Bang, the Daily Star reported."

It cited the Daily Star as a source! The Daily Star is a British tabloid newspaper. It's the kind of tabloid that makes other tabloids (like The Sun) seem balanced, sensible and un-sensationalist. I think the New York Post pitches itself on about the same level as The Sun (both Murdoch papers. Don't get Greta started about that!).

So the first thing I'd want to do is look beyond publications whose main motivation is to create an eye-catching, click-bait headline (in Britain these headlines often have "boffin" in them, as in "Boffins PROVE that the moon is REALLY made of cheese!!!!") and examine what has actually been discovered, what has been said by the discoverers, the sense in which they meant it and, crucially, the expressions on their faces when they said it.

I'm not familiar with the Daily Star, but yeah, definition the NY Post can be sensationalist.

Good reference with the sciencealert.com article in your later post.

I'd be curious, if we know that the tau neutrinos are coming from the Earth rather than from the sky, why couldn't it be that the Earth is producing them, and for some reason, some percentage of them pass through so that they can be detected?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 7:40 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 3:11 am I think the New York Post pitches itself on about the same level as The Sun (both Murdoch papers. Don't get Greta started about that!).

If @Greta isn't allowed to rant, perhaps I could rant in her place? 😋 Murdoch and his billionaire cronies are the source of most Bad Things in the world. Time to sharpen the blades on our guillotines, don't you think? 😋

Certainly his lies have been right on a par with those routinely peddled by the likes of Xi, Trump and Putin. It's bemusing to see the very worst of people rise to the highest positions.

Greta wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 5:07 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 7:40 am

If @Greta isn't allowed to rant, perhaps I could rant in her place? Murdoch and his billionaire cronies are the source of most Bad Things in the world. Time to sharpen the blades on our guillotines, don't you think?

Certainly his lies have been right on a par with those routinely peddled by the likes of Xi, Trump and Putin. It's bemusing to see the very worst of people rise to the highest positions.

The so called "very worst" only rise to those highest positions because it is 'you' people who lift them up to those positions, and place them there.

evolution wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 7:11 pm The so called "very worst" only rise to those highest positions because it is 'you' people who lift them up to those positions, and place them there.

When you say "you", you mean "us", right? We, the people, and all that.

This reminds me of why I have the impulse, when I want to know the news, to go to a place like Axios that gives it unpolished and unsweetened, in fact almost bland enough to repel people.

Is anyone doing something similar to that with science updates?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 7:13 am

evolution wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2020, 7:11 pm The so called "very worst" only rise to those highest positions because it is 'you' people who lift them up to those positions, and place them there.

When you say "you", you mean "us", right? We, the people, and all that.

At the subjective level I meant those of 'you' who put these people in those highest positions, like by voting them or by just giving them their power. I do neither of these, so I am not one of 'you'.

At the objective level I meant 'you', human beings, give power to some and not to others. The only way one human being can have power over another is by given that one that power. 'you', human beings, do this. I do not do this.

If you want to look at and discuss how only some people rise to those so called "highest" positions first, and come to an agreement on that, then we could successfully move onto the point that you are trying to make about 'you' and 'us', and see if we do come to an agreement on that?