23 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  2. “These findings were so unexpected, Boldyrev says, that he and colleagues struggled for more than two years to convince science reviewers and editors to publish their results,” says Muffoletto.
    From what I have witnessed of the scientific and university communities latlely, they were probably mocked, ridiculed and threatened for being helium deniers.

  3. The result was predicted theoretically so no new science was discovered and no one but a scientifically illiterate pseudo-chemist would have been surprised.

  4. Coming soon: Rigid airships will be prohibited from flying over open salt mines. From desk of a half-cocked bureaucrat that remembers a bit of history and even less stoichiometry.

  6. Actually, making this stuff in the lab is new science.
    Look up “The Scientific Method”.

  7. I disagree, I think this is actually less silly and sensational that about 90% of “science” journalism stories this year.
    Yes, the writer was a little vague as to whether or not the researchers had created the compound, (and even when created, I can’t imagine something created in a diamond anvil is the sort of thing you can exhibit). However, it at least linked to the actual study.
    I did laugh when I read that they had difficulty getting published, even in a Nature journal. I don’t think journals are all that discriminating about what they publish.

  8. So what’s the practical application for this?
    As of what I know now, it requires a massive amount of electricity to produce helium which defeats the purpose for replacing fossil fuels as our main energy source.

  9. The only way to produce helium is to fuse hydrogen.
    It is more “mined” than made.
    And as far as practical applications, who knows?

  13. It’s not sexy and you can’t blame it on global warming, so I can see how they had difficulty.

  14. It’s mostly recovered from natural gas . Saskatchewan gas around shaunovan is particularly rich in helium

  15. It doesn’t matter if worldwide temperatures fall, or remain static … because America has multiple government agencies to PROVE (sic) that each succeeding year has become hotter than the next. It is less “settled science”, than it is cognitive dissonance. We have highly paid sciencitists to offer scientific (read: statistical manipulation) PROOF(sic) of global warming.
    Here in CA, we have our own Governor of dissonance … Jerry Brown. Jerry has persisted in “officially” declaring the “6th year of the worst drought in the history of CA”(sic) in the middle of a RECORD year of rainfall and snowfall. The state is in full FLOOD mode, and is thoroughly saturated in water. Yet, it is still “officially” a drought. Every single one of CA reservoirs are FAR above average levels, and the Sierra is covered in a RECORD snowpack from north to south. Jerry’s “scientific” rationale? A portion of the State (Death Valley) remains below average in annual precipitation. So Jerry arbitrarily alters the truth of CA precipitation. Why? Because he desperately needs PROOF of global warming, and justification of his new carbon tax and increased gasoline taxes. The CA “drought” was OVER last year. ALL of our primary water supply reservoirs were FULL … last year. CA had a normal, cyclical, 4-year drought. I am a 4th generation Californian (my great grand parents settled in San Diego in 1919, driving cross-country from Erie Pennsylvania). I have personally experienced multiple droughts in CA. The 1970’s drought was particularly dry and forced conservation. However, the word “drought” is being abused by Jerry. And that is all it is … a word … that has NO specific scientific definition. So Jerry arbitrarily extrapolates the meaning of “drought” to extend to 100% of the State. If 1% of the State is experiencing sub-normal precipitation, then 100% of the State will be “officially” recorded as suffering from “drought”. This arbitrary, and inaccurate RECORD of “drought” will remain written-down for time immemorial. Jerry is LYING about the climate just as our NOAA, and NASA pseudo-scientists are LYING about climate.
    This is what leftists do … they invent the “truth” they want to believe. They are anti-scientists. They wouldn’t know what REAL, HARD-science is if it washed over them like a CA deluge of precipitation.

  16. So what’s the practical application for this?
    So far, probably none. Yes, it’s a scientific curiosity right now but it may have a use some day. This often happens with new inventions and discoveries (e. g., the laser).
    It’s like when a politician once asked Michael Faraday about what use electricity might have. His answer was: “Why, sir, there is every possibility that you will soon be able to tax it.”

  17. Well, that calls for a “Faraday Day” here in Ontario.
    Eff it, make it a “Faraday Gay Day”, just ’cause it’s 2017.

  18. OK, so I’ll hang on to my diamond anvil for a while yet, it may become useful in the near future

  19. Yay! Finally they’ll be able to make a pill that let’s you talk in a high voice.
    Soon everyone can sing like the BeeGees!

  22. DON’T forget what you’ve learned. Noble gas compounds have been known for years. Helium compounds were almost inevitable. If the conditions are extreme enough, almost anything can be made to happen. Have a loo at compendia of inorganic chemistry.
    We probably should label compounds stable at room temperature and temperature as “compounds” and others as “quasicompounds.” That should have been done years ago.
    You know quite a few solutes form “quasiccompounds” lasting minute fractions of a second in aqueous media. They can be studied via Raman spectroscopy among other methods.
    Nuclear physicists are much brighter than chemists in that regard. They give lifetimes for their nuclides.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation