Scientists sound alarm over long wait for Nobel prize

October 5, 2014 by Peter Harmsen
Guests arrive for the traditional Nobel Prize banquet at the Stockholm City Hall on December 10, 2013

Awarding Nobels decades after the original scientific discovery could lead to the coveted prize becoming irrelevant, some observers say, as ageing researchers miss out on their turn to get the long-awaited call from Sweden.

That's what happened in 2011 when the Nobel committee announced that half the prize for medicine and physiology would go to Canadian-born biologist Ralph Steinman.

It soon emerged that Steinman had died three days earlier, but the Nobel committee made an exception to its own rule that the prize cannot be awarded posthumously, arguing that it thought he was alive when it made the decision.

"If we keep going on like this, there will be many more cases of this kind. It's just a matter of time. So something has to be done," said Santo Fortunato, a physicist at Finland's Aalto University.

Earlier this year, Fortunato and several other scientists wrote an article in the prestigious magazine Nature that documented how the wait was growing longer.

"Before 1940, Nobels were awarded more than 20 years after the original discovery for only about 11 percent of physics, 15 percent of chemistry and 24 percent of physiology or medicine prizes," they wrote.

"Since 1985, however, such lengthy delays have featured in 60 percent, 52 percent and 45 percent of these awards, respectively."

If the trend continues, they wrote, by the end of this century, the prizewinners' predicted average age for receiving the award is likely to exceed their projected life expectancy.

In other words, most might be dead by the time they are in line for getting a Nobel prize.

"This lag threatens to undermine science's most venerable institution," they concluded in the Nature article.

Hold off the 'cheerleaders'

The criticism comes as the 2014 Nobel prizes in the sciences are set to be announced this week.

Proponents of the current Nobel arrangement say that it is in the nature of modern complex science for a discovery to be confirmed as bona fide only after lengthy testing.

The Higgs boson, for instance, whose discovery was honoured with the physics prize last year, was hypothesised almost half a century ago.

But the elusive subatomic particle, which gives other particles mass, was only finally proved in recent years with the help of massive and costly practical research.

By then, one of the three original discoverers of the Higgs boson, the US-Belgian physicist Robert Brout, had died.

But for Sven Lidin, the chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, the Higgs boson is a good illustration of why it's almost impossible to push the process any quicker.

"We want to make sure that we award those who open the first door into new scientific insight. This means that naturally there is a delay," he said. "Typically it takes about 20 years before the initial door opener has matured into a Nobel prize."

And it guards against rushing to award breakthroughs that could later turn out to be less than meets the eye.

In 1989 two scientists announced the discovery of a technique for "cold fusion", which would allow nuclear reactions at near room temperature, and, if proven, would solve most of the world's energy problems permanently. A quarter century later, it remains unconfirmed.

"Every year there are lots of claims of amazing discoveries, and quite a few of them turn out to be not quite as amazing as everyone thought," said Lidin.

"Because of that, it's a good idea to exercise some caution before bringing out the pom-poms and calling out for the cheerleaders."

As for ageing scientists missing out on receiving an award they deserve, Aalto University's Fortunato has a suggestion.

"We could consider awarding it posthumously. Of course, the people who receive it won't have much to gain because they will be dead, but I think it's important that their discoveries get recognised," he said.

However, a posthumous prize would mean missing out on the Nobel awards' ability to put science on the public agenda, according to Lidin.

"We would lose out on the visibility parts. We would lose out on the fact that science is actually something that is happening today," he said.

Even if the Nobel prize continues to go only to living scientists, as has been the rule since 1974, the growing time lag means that it will increasingly go to scientists at the end of their careers.

To provide younger scientists with proper incentives, alternative awards are needed, argued Matthew Wallace, a science policy researcher at the Institute for Innovation and Knowledge Management of the Spanish National Research Council.

"In order to promote and reward innovation and creativity, it would indeed be more useful to have prizes that reward more junior researchers and that reward more recent discoveries," he said.

Explore further: Professor notes wait for Nobel science prizes is growing alarming long

Related Stories

Nobel chemistry prize to be announced in Stockholm

October 10, 2012

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences will announce the winners of the 2012 Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday, capping this year's science awards before the Nobel spotlight moves to literature and peace.

'God particle' discovery poses Nobel dilemma

October 7, 2012

On July 4, scientists announced they had discovered a new particle that may be the fabled Higgs boson, an exploit that would rank as the greatest achievement in physics in more than half a century.

Nobel winners pay tribute to deceased laureate

December 6, 2011

(AP) -- Two scientists who will collect this year's Nobel Prize in medicine praised late co-winner Ralph Steinman on Tuesday, saying he probably knew he was in line for the prestigious award.

Recommended for you

A decade on, smartphone-like software finally heads to space

March 20, 2019

Once a traditional satellite is launched into space, its physical hardware and computer software stay mostly immutable for the rest of its existence as it orbits the Earth, even as the technology it serves on the ground continues ...

44 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
The obvious solution: Research into longer lifespans. Problem solved and Nobel Prize to boot
(just kidding).

But I do think the posthumous idea isn't good. I'd rather see some wrongly awarded prizes than turn it into a commemorative service.
It would also be a chance to demonstrate scientific integrity if people could give their prize back if proven wrong. (Not necessarily the prize money, since in that case no one could ever use that for further research without potentially bankrupting an entire institution).

A change that might be due is to award the prize to groups/institutions if the work was a massive group effort.
MaxC500
not rated yet Oct 05, 2014
It seems they should usher in an extra sort of Noble nomination prize. Providing only scientists that are considered to receive the Noble prize with a very high (95%+ for example agreed) certainty with a special Pre-Noble Nomination prize. For the Higgs Boson for example it was well known the chances of it`s discovery were although unimaginable difficult and needing this giant European/CERN collider still overwhelmingly high as it fitted perfectly in the standard model. This should have been enough to put the involved scientists into a category of pre recognition for which they could be awarded a kind of pre recognition prize by the Noble committee. A prize that could still be undone if for some reason it still turned out to be wrong. This would inspire the scientists and provide them recognition to some degree in their field and for many while still actually being alive.
Eddy Courant
3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014
The Nobel lost it's nobility when Gore and Obama "earned" theirs.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
I kinda hope they will change the rules so you can get your Prize earlier. Like before your ToEs are actually written in a book. That way you can get all the oohs, and aaahs, you deserve and don't have to worry about somebody plagiarizing your ToEs off the interweb.

Maybe 12 or 10 years early? With another 5 years grace period just so you can lock him up tight so nobody can steal him or make fun of him while you are enjoying your prize money.

What you think Really-Skippy? Sound good to you Cher?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. It should also be allowed to nominate and pick your own self because that way the troll/mod/mafia/gang/bots can not interfere with choosing of the winner.
orti
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
What has made the Nobel Prizes irreverent is the eagerness to become politically correct and promote nonexistent leftist accomplishments.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
A change that might be due is to award the prize to groups/institutions if the work was a massive group effort.
@AA_P
Like CERN and it's hard work regarding the Higgs?
I wonder why something like that ISN'T awarded the Nobel! it is well deserved and it took a lot of effort.

I was hoping that it would be the one thing that redefined the rules anyway... but I also know that traditions like that are sometimes hard to break and do away with. It would be like abolishing christmas in the world.

What you think Really-Skippy? Sound good to you Cher?
@Ira
Don't tease the TROLLS, Ira
we don't need him trolling/spamming/baiting THIS thread too... he is already filling up servers with his other crap-o-la!
It should also be allowed to nominate and pick your own self because that way the troll/mod/mafia/gang/bots can not interfere with choosing of the winner.
THIS part if freaking HILARIOUS though!

GOOD POINT IRA...

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
Like CERN and it's hard work regarding the Higgs?

Yes. Most of astrophysics and a lot of medicine is also due to large collaborative efforts. In the time of Nobel researchers were pretty much on their own or in tiny groups. So it made sense to award individuals or tiny teams. Today that has changed in many (if not most) scientific disciplines. You've got the guys who do theory, experimentors, simulators, and a whole host of people who put in time to verify (or disprove) one idea. They should get recognition, too.

I would not be surprised if the rules were relaxed at some point in the future.
betterexists
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
And Obama got it in his 1st year or so.
How CROOKED the Selection Team is quite evident!
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
Announce 5 Nobels each for FUTURE Inventions/Discoveries into Nuclear Fusion, Quantum Computer and the like!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
Captain Stumpy...

TL;DR
baiting troll post
jeffrey_rose_982
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
Velocity, wavelength, temperature define a particle's commonality or uniqueness. I see this as something fully explained in something I found called "The Resonance Principle. http://www.marcru...orb.ivnu

The scientist worked with a very creative artist and made a Five Part Animated Musical Video Book that expresses a very logical principle. After seeing it, I think you'll understand that every particle can be coalesced into an atomic structure for the sake of creating a usable material. If the particle moves at just the right speed, the movie shows how a single particle by its speed, temperature and wavelength can be unique, a photon, quark, graviton, neutrino (speciallly unique and the key to magnetism) , or a proton, electron or gravaton, et al. The principle explains all particles as existing in a spectrum. I think you would find watching it enligtning as enjoyable. And DO put on your headphone
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
Captain Stumpy...

TL;DR
baiting troll post

Mate, which 'wilderness' on which 'planet' are you residing in? Haven't you the least bit of pride? You keep making a hysterically funny hypocritical fool of yourself, pretending to take the high ground when it is YOU and IRA that post the "TL;DR, baiting troll posts".

For example, above, Ira posted such to/about me even though I had not participated in this thread. Then OU applauded and so encourage Ira in that TL;DR drivel. Which makes your post applauding/encouraging him ALSO TL;DR etc to "the max hypocrisy".

He and you also vote mindlessly because of persona agendas. Even my posts supporting the global warming observations/science are being downvoted by you desperately stupid slobs. Or are you all Global warming DENIERS? Is that it?

Wise up, you rabidly senseless hypocritical twin-twerps! YOU two ego-tripping anti-science-&-humanity-ethics twerps are being the trolls here. Duh. Quit it, you twerps.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
Nobody prohibits the physicists to research in cold fusion or scalar wave physics, where the practical applications will be immediate
@Castro-Zephir
Apparently you are ignoring a LOT of links out there
Otto and some others have posted links showing continuing LENR studies
Alfred Nobel dedicated his prize only for finding of the practical importance
Are you still harping about your pet theories that have been proven false?
C-mon, Z. let it drop already
people don't "investigate" it because there is POWERFUL evidence that awt is false
If they want to embezzle the public money with development of apparent progress like the string theory
Personal conjecture without evidence
SOMEONE with a LOT of science in their background felt it important and worth awarding, thus it is NOT embezzlement

Hi CapS.
@rc
TL;DR
BAITING
TROLLING
SPAMMING
FLAMING

reported
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
Poor poor CapS. Stop digging yourself deeper into your troll-shithole, you utter idiot.

Wow. What a clever post.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
I can't resist ...
Award prize money now, not later.
The trough is nearly empty and the pigs want feeding.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
TL;DR
baiting troll post

I'll adopt this as standard reply to his posts from now on. If we all do he'll go away.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
TL;DR
baiting troll post

I'll adopt this as standard reply to his posts from now on. If we all do he'll go away.

@antialias_physorg
this WAS your idea after all, so YOU deserve the credit for getting me started! :-)

tell you what... I will do this as well from now on
AND
when he trolls and baits, i will report it as well

Thanks, antialias_physorg

The trough is nearly empty and the pigs want feeding.
@blue
as in?
are you going to start posting conspiracy stuff now too?
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
bluehigh uttered/claimed
Thankfully, even if you don't believe in God ... He still believes in you!
Please tell us how good this god is, at least in terms of the key aspect of human interactions & that is "communications"...

1. By what specific method does your god or any god actually communicate please ?

2. A follow up would be what specific evidence is there that any claim of a so called personal god is consistent with nature's brutal & rather successful regime of "eat & be eaten" ?

&

3. Did the claimed 'personal' god have anything to do with the billions of galaxies and the many billions of stars and their planets ?

But, to make it easy for you now, please start with question 1
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
As Da Schneib would say: "NO science, antialias". lol

Don't compare yourself with the likes of him. That's so ridiculous/sad/pathetic of you. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
are you going to start posting conspiracy stuff now too?
- CS

Nah .. Just carrying on a bit too far with my opinion that somtimes money corrupts scientists as much as anyone else and should be considered. Forget about it.

But hey ... Look at the crazy bloke go bonkers at my 'tounge in cheek' God loves you comment. I kinda thought I would wake up Otto but I guess he knows me a bit better nowadays.

Such outrage ... So funny.

I know ... Mea culpa too sometimes. Right AA?

Again, late night here. Cheers.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Just carrying on a bit too far with my opinion that somtimes money corrupts scientists as much as anyone else and should be considered

You are aware that scientists are usually
- smarter than the average person
- have a job that doesn't pay well

I.e. that scientists know full well that they could get better paying jobs in no time. That should tell you that scientists aren't in this for the money. (and there's also precious little fame in ebing a scientist - so that's not it, either). And getting a prize is also not something you can bank on in your career
(given the nature of the article it isn't even certain that you'll be in a physical condition - or even around - to spend it if you do get one)
condolf52
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2014
It didn't take them long to give Al Gore and the others a prize for their pseudo-science work on global warming. Nor the one they gave Obama, who had done nothing at all. Either they need to wait until all the science (or other work) has been completed and verified or give everyone a prize for breathing.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
It's late, I'm tired. I should resist the bait but hey, what the hell ...

You are aware that scientists are usually
- smarter than the average person
- have a job that doesn't pay well


They/we are educated and trained in a particular discipline. That's not necessarily 'smarter'.

I guess if they/we have a low paying job then they/we are not so smart. (That's a nasty thing to say but shit, I'm tired).

And the rest blah blah ... What's the article about then? Glory, fame, money, recognition? If the scientists referred to in this article did their stuff 'for the love of it' then why are they complaining?

Whatever AA, we differ in * opinions * with this. Let's agree to disagree or if you want you win. Ok?

Help me with my question here please, if you would be so kind.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Can we 'see' anything except the pulses? Is there likely any detectable gravitational effects?

Tec12
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Speaking from his care home in Urbana, Illinois, Prof Holonyak said the blue LED would never have happened without the work he and others carried out in the early 1960s, which enabled others to build on their achievements. I also found somewhat strange, that the authors of blue LED got a prize, whereas the founders of LED not.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
I.e. that scientists know full well that they could get better paying jobs in no time. That should tell you that scientists aren't in this for the money
@AA_P
this is how I feel about it as well
especially considering some of the stuff I've seen with my own eyes...

Just carrying on a bit too far with my opinion that somtimes money corrupts scientists as much as anyone else and should be considered. Forget about it
@Blue
IMHO- nothing wrong with stating an opinion as long as people know it is opinion
but I'll forget it
They/we are educated and trained in a particular discipline. That's not necessarily 'smarter'
that really depends

a physics grad likely knows more about physics than, say, an acolyte pushing a known pseudoscience, right? see: http://phys.org/n...ght.html and cd thinking T.Thompson is ignorant of physics/plasma physics

Hi antialias/Captain Stumpy
ROTFLMFAO - too funny!
TL;DR baiting troll post
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
If the scientists referred to in this article did their stuff 'for the love of it' then why are they complaining?
@bluehigh
actually, I think i can answer this based upon some personal experiences
In the US Air Farce, firefighters are not allowed to be awarded the purple heart because "they have the ability to say NO" and not run into a burning building
This was per a senator who got angry that firefighters did not rush into a wood frame structure with fire showing out the roof in order to save a life
(it would have taken the lives of the firefighters who went in as it collapsed shortly after they arrived)
but because they said NO, the purple heart was taken from them
That meant that my boys @ the Kobar towers bombing did NOT receive any awards even though they saved many lives WHILE OFF DUTY
Also had many injured in combat, but not awarded the SAME medal everyone else gets for the same actions
and yet we still have firefighters and people doing the job...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
continued:

the point being that we didn't do the job for the money
We got paid by the air farce rank we had, and we put in 72 hours one week, and 96 hours the next, on a o24 on/24 off schedule... while any OTHER air farce person got the same pay for doing a 40 -60 hour work week
We were not able to get a lot of the medals that others got because we could say NO... but that is not really fair now, is it? after all... BECAUSE we could say NO, anyone who did it anyway should be recognized just like any other AF puke who did something similar under the same circumstances

It would be nice if we were able to get the same level of recognition that everyone else got for doing the same thing everyone else got medals for... but we don't
That has never stopped us from being firefighters, nor doing our jobs, nor being the best that we could be
It sucks that we can't get it, but being a firefighter is more a calling than a job

IMHO - I think that is the mindset that the above scientists have
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014

They/we are educated and trained in a particular discipline. That's not necessarily 'smarter'.

They passed the toughest university courses and then some to get their degrees. No, you don't do that with average/below (or just slightly above) average intelligence. No way no how.

I guess if they/we have a low paying job then they/we are not so smart.

Science is something that you just love doing. I'd rate myself as an average scientist during my stint (based on the fact that my PhD was issued with the most common modifier) - and it took me all of one job application to get a job that paid triple my scientist salary. And I didn't even haggle.

None of my acquaintances who have made the switch get paid less (or or even close to the same). All are in the 50k-120kEuro/year range (before taxes). For comparison PhD students get 15-20k and postdocs about 35k. Pittance for investing 10years of zero earning education beforehand while others start earning from the get-go.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
Hi anti. :)
As Da Schneib would say: "NO science, antialias". lol
Don't compare yourself with the likes of him. That's so ridiculous/sad/pathetic of you. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.
Cute attempt there to distract from the point made, mate! The point was your and capS 'conversation' had no science and was all about YOUR own hypocritical gartuitous baiting and trolling therein. No mention of that point in your dishonest evasive 'response' making a strawman about my 'comparing' myself with Schneib. I merely appropriated his usual 'one liner' for the purpose of highlighting your own purely bait and troll posts which had no science in them. So you and CapS were again being utter hypocrites and doing exactly what you accuse others of. And what do you come back with? A strawman and convenient silence on the point made. Way to go, 'scientist'. If that is the caliber & MO of the 'modern scientist' breed you 'represent', then there is indeed NO 'comparison'. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2014
You do realize that once you enter the discussion there's no 'science' in it? Once you start to post it's all spam/bait/troll. Why on Earth would I act 'scientific' with a troll? Explain that to me.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
actually, I think i can answer this based upon some personal experiences
- CS

Thats an effective communicative background narrative. Your exposition as a text style is persuasive. Thanks for sharing, I learned something.

- ie: that's a real blurb, I'm with ya bro. (Class response).

(and perhaps it needs more Dragons ... *sigh* ... The youth of today).

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2014
The point was your and capS 'conversation' had no science and was all about YOUR own hypocritical gartuitous baiting and trolling therein
Actually, it was on-topic and referred to another ON TOPIC post that specifically discussed the motivations of the scientists in the article

your post, however, has NO redeeming value and is off topic as well as BAITING/TROLLING/FLAMING
and reported for being so

that's a real blurb, I'm with ya bro. (Class response).
@Blue
Yep... gotcha... i thought it relevant to the subject and discussion

the average firefighter makes $15-22k start pay to risk his life for people... slightly lower cops
avg. pay nation wide is $44k http://www.paysca...r/Salary
would most people risk their life daily for that?

this goes straight to intent regarding research as well. they can make far more in the industry than research...

I can see and relate to what AA_P was talking about
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS.

The point was your and capS 'conversation' had no science and was all about YOUR own hypocritical gartuitous baiting and trolling therein
Actually, it was on-topic and referred to another ON TOPIC post that specifically discussed the motivations of the scientists in the article your post, however, has NO redeeming value and is off topic as well as BAITING/TROLLING/FLAMING and reported for being so


Well now, "actually" CapS, what lying fool's planet do you come from, mate? You ignored the evidence that your posts 'in troll conversation' between you and antialias regarding me were trols and baits and nothing else.

Here quoted below is my earlier post excerpt of your off-topic trollish exchange again, to remind you of what the forum actually saw which you want to deny and lie about now...

....antialias responding to CapS's own hypocritical trolling baiting posts...
TL;DR baiting troll post
I'll adopt this as standard reply to his posts from now on. If we all do he'll go away.


As Da Schneib would say: "NO science, antialias". lol

....Captain Stumpy responding to antialias' hypocritical baiting trolling post....
TL;DR baiting troll post
I'll adopt this as standard reply to his posts from now on. If we all do he'll go away.
@antialias_physorg this WAS your idea after all, so YOU deserve the credit for getting me started! :-) tell you what... I will do this as well from now on AND when he trolls and baits, i will report it as well Thanks, antialias_physorg
So there we have it, Forum, more hypocrisy and trolls from the 'ultimate groupies' here. :) Hey, CapS, why did you have to start digging in your own troll-shithole again?


CapS, it is sad to see again, that you try to con the forum/readers with your own 'versions' of what went down. It is symptomatic of wilful total and irretrievable loss of any integrity or sense which you may have started out with. Sad.

Haven't you any brain cells left enough to tell you when to leave well alone and stop digging, CapS? Your juvenile tactic of futile denial and lying is no substitute for the facts in evidence quoted in grey-and-white above, CapS. So much for any pretense to the high ground for you, mate. QED.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS.
@sam-i-am
TL;DR
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported

I will not reply to you again
just letting you know that
(because I know you WILL reply to this and BAIT/TROLL/FLAME some more because of your OCD and the belief that you think you won something by posting last)

I really don't mind not being the last poster. i will let you have it
it only supports what I've been saying
(and i know that you will copy/paste this again here or in other threads in an argument that you think supports what you are saying, but will only draw others to this thread and your arguments showing your epic failure)

Good night, penguin-head
nice to see you refuse to change
it makes it easy when pointing you out on other threads and in other places

P.S. given your lack of science and your inability to refute anything posted yet, perhaps you should consider taking a break from being an earthling?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Poor creepy CapS. You haven't the sense to stop your creepy stalking and trolling and baiting while you are clueless and dishonest and incompetent sad case troll withal. Get some sense and discretion and integrity and some sober, you silly drunken drugged up lying creepy internet sot. Stop blabbing and digging yourself even deeper, you ass.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
But the community of theorists embezzled his prize for itself and now we are facing the situation
@Zephir-tep320
yes, we know you don't like modern physics and modern science
yes, we understand that you feel that there is a conspiracy against you
this only shows that you and your cohorts like the troll above you believe in something so strongly that you are willing to dismiss empirical evidence for the sake of your faith and beliefs (which you regularly do with THIS link: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf )
WE GET IT
like the cold fusion, which aren't recognized at all
maybe when there is a working prototype that meets the publicized specifications and can do what it has been touted as being able to do, etc?
more conspiracy BS, zeph

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
Caps.

This from you to Zeph...
...and your cohorts like the troll above you believe in something so strongly that you are willing to dismiss empirical evidence for the sake of your faith and beliefs...


I was the poster just above Zeph, so you just invoked me in one of your usual false claims and baits.

When will you stop misrepresenting me, and making unfounded 'associations' innuendoes about an independent scientist like you know I am who is not 'associated' in any way with anyone else, CapS? You just gratuitously baited and misrepresented me, again, so blame yourself for this response, ok CapS?

Please zip it, soldier! And stop digging that hole.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2014
bluehigh muttered
But hey ... Look at the crazy bloke go bonkers at my 'tounge in cheek' God loves you comment. I kinda thought I would wake up Otto but I guess he knows me a bit better nowadays.
LOL.
Was it my mistake your attempt at satire wasnt well communicated or crafted to actually show it wasn't from a religious devotee ?

Knowing this medium isnt an ideal means to communicate without emoticons or something similar then what can you offer to ensure you are not misinterpreted, over to you ;-)

Mea Culpa indeed :P

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.