Few things warm the heart of a scientist more readily than a query from a young, curious mind, eager to learn about our universe. Why, just now I received this inquiring email:
R xxxxxx xxxxxx@hotmail.com to me
Sean,
Neutrons have no chemical properties and reflect no light, but they do have mass and occupy space =matter, and clouds of them will never be visible in space!
I find it difficult to believe people who are supposed to be so smart are suck fucking retards!
Cheers Retard ,
Robert
For the curious:
Always happy to help a fellow seeker of knowledge.
Anchor, if pointing out hypocrisy and lameness is being a policeman then so be it. Actually policemen act within narrower constraints than this and pointing out hypocrisy isn’t within that purview. Obviously for you it is similar to the policeman putting on his siren behind a whole group of highway speeders. The cop nabs the first one that slows down because he was the one with the guiltiest conscience. You were that man, or at least you felt like it.
If free neutrons only have a half life of 15 minutes, why is it that neutron stars don’t evaporate?
Is it because they’re really made of false neutrons (ie protons and electrons combined) or is it because they’re considered to be inside a giant nucleus?
@52. Benjamin: bound neutrons are stable. For free neutrons it is energetically more favourable for them to beta decay into a proton, electron and neutrino, but in a bound state the negative binding energy means the total energy of the system is lower than the total energy after beta decay. For example the mass energy of a deuteron (neutron + proton) is lower than the combined mass energy of two protons, an electron and a neutrino, so the deuteron is stable. On the other hand the free neutron’s mass is greater than that of the combined proton, electron and neutrino, making decay energetically favourable
@Sean: the original email is actually a good question, if only he wasn’t such a rude crackpot. Too many popular expositions start with “scientists believe that…” without actually explaining the process that leads to such conclusions. Is it any wonder the average person thinks science is just another belief system when it’s presented as such, or that people like the emailer aren’t aware of how much work goes into falsifying theories?
Tevong says, “Is it any wonder the average person thinks science is just another belief system when it’s presented as such, or that people like the emailer aren’t aware of how much work goes into falsifying theories?”
I’m confused: are you appending the object of this concern to the glut of crackpots or to honest but oft timid scientists who refrain from engaging the public in a way that fights crackpottery? Maybe I’m completely missing the target.
BTW, that was an excellently crisp explanation answering Benjamin’s question. Bravo! Beautiful and succinct. Wish more of same to help thwart the tendency of the average person to think science is ‘just another belief system’.
Would you be interested in listening to a few questions on EM characteristics of spherical ferrous liquids?
via e-mail of course 😉
or anyone for that matter…
quantumstrides@hotmail.com
What was the point of this posting? We routinely meet challenged people. Why elevate this to a blog posting? They deserve sorrow for their diminished cognitive state, not an orgy of self-congratulatory superiority.
[quote]Few things warm the heart of a scientist more readily than a query from a young, curious mind, eager to learn about our universe. Why, just now I received this inquiring email:[/quote]
Few things warm the heart of a wayward student of complex reality than a teacher who would rather hold you up to public derision than engage you in an informative way.
Likes neutrons shining no light, or something.
@psmith: Announcing that Robert has a “diminished cognitive state” based on a single short email sure makes you a better, more modest person than those who are merely mocking his arrogance. You and Eric H. should combine your obvious interest in making condescending proclamations about what others are thinking while using plenty of imagery that involves people rubbing their bodies together. Hawt!
NBWAW, there are occasions when there is merit in large groups of people seriously discussing an individual taking a wrong turn. That occasion occurs when the individual being discussed either has 1. Created serious harm, or
2. Has the power or influence to create great harm.
Power and prestige is the dividing line on how much attention these situations should get. The emailer had neither of these things going for him. If you can’t see that this post and it’s reactions are just about you and yours just feeling better about yourselves then I feel sorry for you. And yes, I do look down on you for not seeing that. But I’m not surprised it would come would from someone elevating Bugs Bunny to an object of prurient interest.
Let me add one more thing. I think it was ok for Sean to be offended by Robert’s rudeness. I would have been too. But in retrospect it seems there was no proportionality between Robert’s rudeness and Sean putting his email out on Cosmic Variance. It was the disproportionality and lynch mob response that it engendered in many comments that were pretty bad. In fact, that turned out being much more offensive and ugly than Robert’s original rudeness. Everyone is allowed to be human and get pissed once in a while but it usually is the disproportionality in response to the original insult that cause problems. In fact I would say that disproportionality of response in conflicts is the cause of much of the worlds problems. I think that should be common sense for everyone but it does not seem to be the case among much of the population.