Xanderox: pipe added

2022-08-18T20:17:01Z

pipe added

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 18 August 2022
Line 113:		Line 113:
	E: Oh!		E: Oh!

	B: Yeah, we actually talked about this{{Link_needed}}.		B: Yeah, we actually talked about this{{Link_needed\|}}.

	J: Come on, Evan.		J: Come on, Evan.
Line 260:		Line 260:
	* NeuroLogica: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/ftl-neutrinos-einstein-can-rest-easy/ FTL Neutrinos? Einstein Can Rest Easy]		* NeuroLogica: [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/ftl-neutrinos-einstein-can-rest-easy/ FTL Neutrinos? Einstein Can Rest Easy]

	S: Bob, there's an important update about a story perhaps we thought was one of, if not ''the'', news story of 2011: the alleged neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light{{Link_needed}}. Tell us what's going on.		S: Bob, there's an important update about a story perhaps we thought was one of, if not ''the'', news story of 2011: the alleged neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light{{Link_needed\|}}. Tell us what's going on.

	B: So, yeah, we've got another important update on what I call one of the biggest and most unlikely to be true science stories of 2011. And I don't think this is the last we're gonna hear of this, but, you guys remember, of course, that whole "neutrinos traveling faster than light" hubbub from last fall. It was such a huge, huge item. It seems now that {{w\|CERN}} may have uncovered a maximally mundane explanation for their results. Many online accounts, that I have read anyway, ascribe it to something as boring and apparently knuckle-headed as a loose wire. But, as we'll see, reality is much more interesting and complicated than that. Just real quickly, scientists at CERN last year revealed that they had spent three years shooting a ghostly beam of neutrinos through the Earth from Switzerland to Italy, and they surprisingly and consistently confirmed that the beam arrived 60 nanoseconds ''earlier'' than it should have, meaning that they were traveling faster than the speed of light. And, of course, this should not merely be hard, but downright ''impossible'' according to everything that physics tells us. And most of the scientists, including the CERN researchers themselves, knew this, and much of the scientific discourse on this topic was concerned with reasonable explanations for the anomaly.		B: So, yeah, we've got another important update on what I call one of the biggest and most unlikely to be true science stories of 2011. And I don't think this is the last we're gonna hear of this, but, you guys remember, of course, that whole "neutrinos traveling faster than light" hubbub from last fall. It was such a huge, huge item. It seems now that {{w\|CERN}} may have uncovered a maximally mundane explanation for their results. Many online accounts, that I have read anyway, ascribe it to something as boring and apparently knuckle-headed as a loose wire. But, as we'll see, reality is much more interesting and complicated than that. Just real quickly, scientists at CERN last year revealed that they had spent three years shooting a ghostly beam of neutrinos through the Earth from Switzerland to Italy, and they surprisingly and consistently confirmed that the beam arrived 60 nanoseconds ''earlier'' than it should have, meaning that they were traveling faster than the speed of light. And, of course, this should not merely be hard, but downright ''impossible'' according to everything that physics tells us. And most of the scientists, including the CERN researchers themselves, knew this, and much of the scientific discourse on this topic was concerned with reasonable explanations for the anomaly.
Line 649:		Line 649:
	E: So this—I know this is—this particular topic interests you; I mean, dinosaurs always do, but specifically the ''Triceratops'' and ''Torosaurus'' I know you've talked about it before as an example.		E: So this—I know this is—this particular topic interests you; I mean, dinosaurs always do, but specifically the ''Triceratops'' and ''Torosaurus'' I know you've talked about it before as an example.

	S: I'll say, we in fact discussed this topic on the show and interviewed a paleontologist about it.{{Link needed}} <!---???link to [[Episode 221]]???-->		S: I'll say, we in fact discussed this topic on the show and interviewed a paleontologist about it.{{Link needed\|}} <!---???link to [[Episode 221]]???-->

	E: So, I'm gonna—I'm leaning that that one is science. Because I think you do a good job keeping up to date with that, and I think it's a cool little, interesting further tidbit on the topic itself. ''T. rex'' had the strongest bite of any animal to have ever lived on Earth. So, yeah, they could do testing in some ways, I'm sure, to measure what the bite—the force behind the bite of extinct species are. I don't doubt that. My problem here is "of any animal to have ''ever'' lived on the Earth"; ''that's'' a big range of animals. If you think of the number of animals there have ever been that we know of. But the last one, the new species, Sss-''Spinops''—am I, ''Spinops''? Am I saying that correctly? Why not? I don't see anything wrong with that. It's cool that they're able to do that—make that more accurate analysis of it, but I think, just because it's "95 years after the fossils were first discovered", I don't think that's a big deal at all. So "''T. rex'' and the strongest bite of any animal"; I'm saying that one's the fiction.		E: So, I'm gonna—I'm leaning that that one is science. Because I think you do a good job keeping up to date with that, and I think it's a cool little, interesting further tidbit on the topic itself. ''T. rex'' had the strongest bite of any animal to have ever lived on Earth. So, yeah, they could do testing in some ways, I'm sure, to measure what the bite—the force behind the bite of extinct species are. I don't doubt that. My problem here is "of any animal to have ''ever'' lived on the Earth"; ''that's'' a big range of animals. If you think of the number of animals there have ever been that we know of. But the last one, the new species, Sss-''Spinops''—am I, ''Spinops''? Am I saying that correctly? Why not? I don't see anything wrong with that. It's cool that they're able to do that—make that more accurate analysis of it, but I think, just because it's "95 years after the fossils were first discovered", I don't think that's a big deal at all. So "''T. rex'' and the strongest bite of any animal"; I'm saying that one's the fiction.

Xanderox: fixed broken link

2022-05-05T16:24:50Z

fixed broken link

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 5 May 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:
	E: ''(gasps)'' It ''is'' leap day!		E: ''(gasps)'' It ''is'' leap day!

	S: This is the ''only'' time that we have recorded a show on [[February 29~~]]th~~, and it may be a long time before we get an opportunity to do so again.		S: This is the ''only'' time that we have recorded a show on {{w\|February 29\|February 29th}}, and it may be a long time before we get an opportunity to do so again.

	R: That's true. Yeah. Very exciting.		R: That's true. Yeah. Very exciting.

Xanderox: updating outro1 to 301

2020-04-27T02:24:43Z

updating outro1 to 301

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 27 April 2020
Line 825:		Line 825:
	S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe		S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

	{{~~Outro1~~}}		{{Outro301}}

	== Today I Learned... ==		== Today I Learned... ==

Jim Gibson: Change tag for Gordon Maupin to 'GM' (as in infobox)

2013-10-14T05:18:05Z

Change tag for Gordon Maupin to 'GM' (as in infobox)

Show changes

Teleuteskitty: removed 'redit req', only internal links need identifying

2013-09-15T12:18:31Z

removed 'redit req', only internal links need identifying

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 15 September 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Editing required~~
	~~\|links = y~~
	~~\|}}~~
	{{InfoBox		{{InfoBox
	\|verified = y		\|verified = y

Av8rmike: Remove notes link, use episode number, use w template

2013-08-08T03:30:17Z

Remove notes link, use episode number, use w template

Show changes

Av8rmike: Mark verified

2013-04-10T01:21:05Z

Mark verified

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 10 April 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|}}		\|}}
	{{InfoBox		{{InfoBox
			\|verified = y
	\|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 346		\|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 346
	\|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> March 2012		\|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> March 2012

Av8rmike: Proof-reading is done but still needs some links

2013-04-10T01:20:43Z

Proof-reading is done but still needs some links

Show changes

Av8rmike: Proof-read up to the interview

2013-04-09T04:20:09Z

Proof-read up to the interview

Show changes

Av8rmike: Claim for proofing

2013-04-08T03:26:29Z

Claim for proofing

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:26, 8 April 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Proof reading all\|proofer = av8rmike}}
	{{Editing required		{{Editing required
	\|proof-reading = y		\|proof-reading = y

SGU Episode 346 - Revision history

Xanderox: pipe added

Xanderox: fixed broken link

Xanderox: updating outro1 to 301

Jim Gibson: Change tag for Gordon Maupin to 'GM' (as in infobox)

Teleuteskitty: removed 'redit req', only internal links need identifying

Av8rmike: Remove notes link, use episode number, use w template

Av8rmike: Mark verified

Av8rmike: Proof-reading is done but still needs some links

Av8rmike: Proof-read up to the interview

Av8rmike: Claim for proofing