Science

Using a Square Wheel

by

Huge amounts of intellectual horsepower have gone into trying to figure out how the ancients built giant stone structures like the  Pyramids  or Stonehenge. Over the past 200 years archeologists, engineers and  physicists  have all chipped in to try to solve the problem.  

They should’ve asked a retired construction contractor from Michigan.  

I find the part where Wallington rolls a 300 lb block like a log especially interesting. He’s using a square wheel. Over the years, I’ve seen lots of discussions of square wheels as geometric oddities or sources of humor but it never occurred to me, or apparently anyone else, that you could use a square wheel to roll a heavy square block as if it were a cylinder.  

I’m sure the ancients had a lot more work cutout for them than Wallington’s experiments show. For example, they would not always have had smooth and level hard surfaces to move things one. Yet, it’s easy to see how the basic ideas could be used in almost any environment with a little work, like laying down paving stones.  

On a related note, have you ever wondered how you go about drilling a square hole?

Junk Science Warning Signs: Part III

by

You keep citing that paper. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Another trap that laymen fall into when evaluating competing scientific claims is to uncritically accept scientific citations. When I first stumbled across Walter Wagner, I found in various places on the Internet the claim that he had discovered a magnetic monopole, and a citation on his website to this article. The citation was not in the normal format for scientific cites, and upon finding the publication, I figured out why. Wally was not even an author on that paper, he was the lab tech who looked at the stack of lexan sheets under a microscope for particle tracks that met the criteria outlined by the principal investigators – some of the lowest grunt work available in a physics lab. Wagner was, indeed listed in the acknowledgments of that paper, and has used that brief brush with fame to create a highly colorful, and highly fictional, scientific background for himself.

There is another object lesson in scientific citation for the layman here, as well. Science moves. It advances. The date on a cite is important. If someone is citing only older papers (and “old” in science means about 5 years), the layman needs to check for him or herself (or check with a trusted expert) that the argument presented has not been made obsolete by new evidence. Let’s look a little closer at the magnetic monopole, shall we?

Read more

Why Don’t We Just Cut China a Check?

by

The really stupid thing about Obama’s carbon cap-and-trade system  [h/t Instapundit] is that it will simply relocate more manufacturing to countries that don’t give a damn about global warming.

The growing economies of China, India, and other parts of the world still have people living the lives of preindustrial  subsistence  farmers.  Right now, today, they have people in dire need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, transportation and every other facet of modern life we take for granted.  They don’t give a crap about hypothetical dangers that will hypothetically manifest a century from now.

Such areas will use dense, rich, reliable sources of energy like coal and nuclear to power their factories while we try to smelt iron with windmills. We will be poor and eventually powerless in the face of such competition. Worse, if global warming is a problem, it will happen anyway. Our sacrifices will simply mean we have fewer resources to deal with the problems posed by global warming.  

Obama plans to shut down our carbon-emitting power sources today, decades before we bring their hypothetical  replacements online. If the technology doesn’t work as predicted, where will we be then?

Obama’s plan will be a massive wealth transfer from America to China and India. We will simply be handing them our current and future economic productivity on a platter.  

Junk Science Warning Signs: Part II

by

Another aspect of being a discerning customer of scientific information is that the careful consumer looks at the source of the information. Not as an ad hominem on any particular researcher, but with an eye to how much quality control went into the peer review, as I mentioned in my last post.

This is directly related to an old post of mine: “Why There?“, and that is a question that you should ask yourself every time a new publication hits the lay press:

Read more

Junk Science Warning Signs: Part I

by

So, commenter Tatyana asked about how a layman can discern the signals that indicate that a discussion has left the realm of rigorous thought. I thought I’d set down some thoughts on that over the course of a couple of posts, starting from the extreme left tail of the distribution and working my way in to stuff that’s more mainstream, could possibly be true, but ought not to be pounced on because there’s a lot more work to be done before a conclusion is reached.

So, to start out with, I’ll tackle something that’s obvious to me as being in the looney science bin: the attacks on the Large Hadron Collider. As I mentioned before, my little online Science Fiction group ran afoul of the utter nutbars in the “LHC Will End the Woooorld” camp. I dug a little deeper into the “some scientists” whom the anti-LHCers cite. I uncovered that the most prestigious scientist whom they could quote was a German biochemist I’d never heard of named Otto Rössler.

So then I dug a little deeper into Professor Doctor Rössler’s record, and came up with quite a lot. Unfortunately, it was quite a lot of utter rubbish. I see that rubbish cited all over the Internet, so I tried to set the record straight. After the jump is the blog post I made, mostly for my SF group’s amusement, about how I was able to tell Rössler was a crank. Enjoy.

Read more