/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12093502

59KiB, 655x527, apustajapaper.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 02:42:07 2020 No.12093502 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12094483 >>12094569

*gets interesting results*
*ignores them because they go against current paradigm*

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 11:17:42 No.12094483 Report

Quoted By:

>>12093502
the state or science

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 11:22:42 No.12094498 Report

Quoted By: >>12094569 >>12095120

Because 99% of the time this means you fucked up somewhere, at least in physics anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 12:10:49 No.12094569 Report

Quoted By: >>12094573

>>12094498
lmao no it doesn't it means the model or even basic concepts can't deal with the results so it looks fucky and nonsensical

>>12093502
usually the results are limited by the paradigm from the very start so they can say everything is fine

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 12:12:51 No.12094573 Report

Quoted By:

>>12094569
Generally speaking it means your setup was wrong. Of course, if you rule that out, there's no reason to throw away any new data. But speaking from experience, many experimental setups are highly subject to systematic errors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 16:55:15 No.12095120 Report

Quoted By:

>>12094498
>Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 40f56388acc81e7ffcda9570d81b0b27.jpg, 60KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 17:41:00 No.12095249 Report

Quoted By:

>yfw dark matter is actually debunked

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches