full_frontal_occlusion

Indeed. Once bitten, twice shy. The CERN scientists have learned from others mistakes. Good on them. ffO.

Einstein does not make Newton wrong in the perjorative sense. Newtons model is simply a case of approximation which holds true for a limited set of conditions. i.e. it's fine for objects within the realms of everyday human experience but does not explain all observations at the scale and velocities of cosmological objects or at the atomic scale. New scientific theories spawn from attempts to describe anomalous observation not accounted for by the old model. But, that new theory must still hold true for the old observations nonetheless. For example: the unification of optics (old world) and electrodynamics was the realisation that light is an electromagnetic wave. Later still, the wave theory of light did not explain the apparent contradictions shown when light displayed behaviour consistent with particles. Similarly, the unification of electrodynamics and quantum-mechanics (both equally valid independent theories) were better described by quantum-electrodynamics (QED) which fit observations at both microscopic and macroscopic scales. A new theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativity will not mean Einstein is wrong. But like Newton, it MAY show that relativity is also an approximation which holds true for a limited set of conditions. But as I said before, I believe we are still a long way from making that assertion - the measurements at CERN must be unambiguously proved correct first. ffO.

I don't think many scientists would disagree with that statement except that tarring all science with the same brush of hypocrisy is a tad disingenuous. No tautology intended! lol. ffO.

Ahhhh. The dilemma faced when trying to explain complex concepts to a very varied lay-audience, who may have a curiosity but are not equiped with the necessary skills or inclination to understand the mathematical modelling or indeed the philosophical and metaphysical arguments. And that really is not meant in any condescending or patronising way. I firmly believe one has to give room for artistic license or the concepts would never gain mainstream discussion and science would continue down the path of perceived elitism. But one also has to accept the pitfalls of a description which has anything other than the brevity of the most elegant mathematical description. I'm all for accessibilty to education that breeds curiosity which leads to a lifetime of searching for the truth and spawns untold benefit for the good of humanity and our planet. Epistemological criticism? You know, (and I'm sure you do) that metaphysicists wage a constant battle with science which verges on the analogous religious arguments for existence and creation. For example, the substantivalists dogma is to prove the existence of physical fact which transcend that required by General Relativity. Science rarely gives a straight answer to a metaphysical question much to the chagrin of the metaphysicists. That's not to say that science is about dogma. The one common approach is the search for truth. For me at least, science is all about keeping an open mind, since any theory only holds true as long as experimental results do not contradict prediction. But when it does, be prepared to think again and continue the search for truth. In my own opinion, we are still a long way from disproving Einstein but perhaps the day is drawing nearer - dependent on your frame of reference of course! ffO.

Perhaps my ommission was the words 'vacuum' amd 'maximum speed'. So let me re-qualify: The maximum 'speed' of light in a vacuum devoid of all other external forces and measured by any observer will be the same measured relative to their 'own' frame of reference. Light travelling at different speeds through different materiels does not violate that statement. However, you make the erroneous assumption that space and time are both physically independent and unrelated realities. But what is time other than the relative measurement of two events be that the hands of a clock ticking or the oscillation of a quartz crystal or the electromagnetic energy emitted by say....a ceasium atom? Time as defined by humans is itself merely a reference to one of these physical properties so that two different 'events' can be measured against that common inertial-reference frame but NOT agreed upon by observers in different reference frames. This is another way of saying the variables in the equaitions must be agreed between different observers before the experimental results can be scientifically verified. i.e. consistent and repeatable. For everyday purposes, Newtons laws of motion suffice for the very tightly bounded existence of humans on Earth. (same reference frame) Enough to get us to the moon. For applications in which tye reference frame is differnt, both general and special theories of relativity are needed. Change our reference by adding a massive object into the vacuum and observational time references will change. This is not me saying this, it is the physical reality proven every time someone uses a GPS receiver as a very real example. Without the compensation defined by Einsteins equations, GPS would drift at a rate of 10km per day and be unable to give the same answer within seconds (GPS incidentally is a good programming application of the Newton-Raphson iterative method used to compute the roots to the linear equations for determining the 3-dimesnional co-ordinates of the oberver) In other words a very physical manifestation of your so called metaphysical concept. ffO.

Understanding is a subjective word. Relativity, quantum mechanics, even Newtonian mechanics are but mere descriptions of observed physical behaviour. i.e. mathematical models. And when observation does not fit with the model something is in error: either the observation or the model or a combination of the two. Hence the reason why the scientists have said 'please find the fault as we're stumped'. And if no fault can be found, then it's time to look at the model. Still far too early in the process to say that the results show the model is incorrect. But it is sharpening the knife which may eventually peel back another layer of the thoeretical onion. ffO. ffO.

Some scientists postulated as far back as 1984 that certain types of high energy neutrino (>3Gev) may indeed have the property that they can travel faster than massless photons which is why the violation of e=mc^2 is causing consternation and excitement. i.e. it violates the conservation of energy laws since neutrinos have mass. Prior to the OPERA collabortion results, FTL neutrino results were observed at the Fermilab MINOS experiments in the early 1980's. But one side of the measurement error bands were within light-speed and so the upper result limits are widely accepted measurement error. This conclusion was also corroborated by obesrving Supernova SN1987A where the high energy neutrinos from that explosion were obeserved to be consistent with energy-conservation laws and did not violate FTL velocity. The neutrino as a tachyon Alan Chodos, Avi I. Hauser <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269385904605#AFF1" name="bAFF1"> V. Alan Kostelecký Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Received 30 October 1984; Available online 24 March 2003. Abstract We investigate the hypothesis that at least one of the known neutrinos travels faster than light. The current experimental situation is examined within this purview. Work supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC-02-76 ERO 3075. ffO.

Not true. Relativity states that the speed of light whoever does the measuring is the same for that individual observer irrespective of the speed they are travelling at. If you move towards a light source, the speed of the light (photon speed) you measure for yourself is constant. However the wavelength of the light (time between electromagnetic peaks and troughs) appears to shorten - the apparent blue-shift in the observed spectrum. This is explained as a natural consequence of the laws for conservation of energy. i.e. Mass and Energy equivalence as stated in Einstiens E=Mc^2

If we're on about statistics here's one: In the 50's and 60's when the cold war was at it's height, far fewer people owned cameras and most did not walk around with one all day. Yet the number of UFO photographs produced during that era exponetiated. And here we are today with digital cameras contained in every mobile phone of which there are now over 5 billion worldwide and still not one credible, unambiguous image. Why is that? Personally, I believe in aliens - it's the most plausible reason for my socks ending up in my son's wardrobe on washday. ffO

Everything about the video screams fake: from the random walking along the street and then catching curious onlookers, the camera panning to show more curious onlookers implying the camera holder was not the only witness, to the "glowing" saucer shapes with no detail. Very similar to the Jerusalem fake UFO's earlier this year. The camera holders behaviour is very suspicious: if I thought I was filming a real UFO, I wouldn't waste a millisecond filming other onlookers whilst the UFO was still visible.And why would extra terrestrials travel many light years to put on an aerial hide and seek show for Londoners? I mean, did they get bored with colonic probing of abducted American's? ffO.

Because university students need to let off steam after the stress of exams and have a lot of free time in the summer. Pranks are a sort of competition to go one step further than the last and students always think theirs are original and the funniest. Of course it helps enormously that some people still think crop circles are caused by plasma vortices or ball lightning. And if the gullibles fall for it and the local and national media still give it publicity, then crop circles it is. ffO.

Geomagnetic storm in progress Kp=6. http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/05/28/suns-active-region-turns-toward-earth-geomagnetic-storm-in-progress/ ffO.

NW to SE over the UK is one of the classic tracks of space missions (usually manned) launched from Florida for low earth orbit insertion and rendezvous. Check out ISS, Space Shuttle etc. There have been manned orbiting space stations since 1973 on that track (with a few gaps). Crossing the sky in two minutes or so, they make no sound whatsoever. The largest of these appear indistinguishable from a medium to bright star and stay at constant brightness and speed as they cross the sky. Only fading as they recede to towards the horizon. My first guess would be this is what you both witnessed but since your event was in 1948, this was before the advent of space flight. It could have been an early attempt at a long range ballistic missile test (MX-774 whose launches began in 1946) . ffO.

Why is it absolutely certain? All evidence gathered so far is circumstantial. Not disputing there may be life elsewhere, but until we find it, it's not absolutely certain. ffO.

Improbable but not impossible, would be a large meteor strike which tends to happen quite regularly on a geological timescale. Tunguska and Arizona spring to mind. Due for another on that scale any time now. I'm not holding my breath though. Out of interest, this diagram shows the location of all recorded earthquakes on the British Isles since 1740. Note the main cluster areas centre around Essex, the Western Shires, Souther Wales coast and Kent at surprisingly large magnitudes (7 or 8 Richter). ffO

Call me a Luddite, but these speculations are all pure conjecture and more aligned with the way religion conducts itself. For example Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. i.e. the repeated translation of a sacred text, then interpreted by the sages of the day for the consumption of faithful followers looking for an enlightened meaning. I am open to being proved wrong, however there is no empirical evidence which would favour these assertions over say a pagan religious interpretation of the observed motion of celestial objects. A modern Erik von Daniken. Humbug. ffO.

This was a reply from Techmedia to a comment I made on NetWeather, seems they follow us on here too! Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Your comments are quite detailed and will be very helpful to our developers as they troubleshoot some of the remaining glitches in the system. With respect to our new Login system, I'm in charge of both Search and Social Media, and I'm afraid that was my idea. I can tell you that the reason for using Gigya for this had nothing to do with data mining at all. (In fact, I hadn't even considered it until you mentioned it.) Our goal was / is to make the web site "more social" and after some research, it was determined that the best way to do that was to allow people to log in using whatever social media IDs that they already had. Thanks again for your comments. We hope you will continue to be an avid space.com reader. Eric Richmond VP, Search and Social Media TechMediaNetwork

Over three weeks now. Problems started when the Techmedia Group (owners) decided it was a good idea to force registration and logging on to the new upgraded site, exclusively via forced link with a social media site. i.e. forcing membership of facebook, myspace, bigg etc. Ostensibly this was to offer a 'richer' media experience but cynically most agree it is an attempt to generate more traffic and free publicity by exploiting data mining. The whole policy backfired with many long standing members rejecting the imposition as a potential gross invasion of privacy and elimination of choice. Hence the forums are undergoing some kind of reversion and are down whilst this is completed. I fear the damage to reputation and loyalty is already done. The longer it goes on, the less likely people are to return. We shall see. ffO.

Couldn't agree more OMM. Science (and hence meteorology) is built entirely on the foundation of phyiscs which itself is good at describing properties and behaviour in mathematical terms to a point. But ask any scientist to explain why fundamental particles or the forces between them exist at all let alone what they are and they cannot. Don't be too concerned MB, there are few who are capable or willing to take personal risk in the pursuit of truth. Your method, as I see it, is no less valid than the emerging science of teleconnections - albeit still only in the realms of amateur meteorology and not statistically proven. I may not agree with the timing or intensity of your forecast but I wish you every success all the same. ffO.

40 days? Now where have I heard that before? The story was written by a guy called Noah - an expert zoologist and mariner.. ffO.

Perhaps this is a rhetorical question for Mrs Mills? ffO.

On the other hand, it could allow more of the responsible but less frequent posters an opportunity to shine. ffO.

Judgement witheld. However, as others have stated, if the moderation of the existing model thread is partially withdrawn, it will definitely open the floodgates for the bickering fraternity. The tempatation for the experienced posters to ignore the existing model discussion thread would then increase exponentially. In which case, the opportunity to interact with the more experienced members is lost. Thus the thread will quickly come into disrepute and many valid and genuinely interested people will stop posting altogether. The key therefore must be to maintain at least the same or improved policing standards with the commitment from the 'chosen ones' not to desert the old model thread. Just a thought. Good to see the site evolving and constantly looking for improvements though. ffO.

Another example of the intransigence on both sides leading to selective interpretation biased towards their own argument. The key words in the quotation are 'accurately include' which could be interpreted as anything between completely omitted all the way through to mostly included but could do with more refinement. To interpret that the coding of climate models completely omit the photosynthesis part of the the carbon cycle is laughable. That forces the interpretation towards the later statement. By the very nature of research, grants must be won based on hard evidence and the very real demonstration of advancing the science. This goes for scientists on both sides of the debate. Securing budgets to improve the model which may yield more insight cannot be a bad thing. However, truth is, without refining the model and then observing actuals against prediction, there is no way these scientists can make the claims they have. So the whole challenge is academic at this time. Still, it may save a few NASA pork barrels. ffO.

Hmmmm. If the UK had 'snow corridors' through high mountain routes vital to our economy, then I'm sure we too would have state-of-the-art systems to keep them clear. Here is a of the clearing operation through the Tateyama region of Japan in your picture. Note: i) that the road appears void of any traffic other than the blowers and ploughs which kinda points to the road being closed ii) the snow that produced the drifts has stopped and the sun is out which I would suggest also indicates the raod was closed througout the storm iii) the operation is a major effort and would take days to clear a route during which time the whole thing remains closed iv) the only way to get supplies in and out before the road is reopened would be by helicopter or tracked vehicle How long would you guess it would take to clear the road in video?Comparing our highly unpredictable snow events (and contingency) with the requirements for highly predictable high Alpine snow-storms and Japans subsequent contingency is, to be frank, ridiculous. ffO.