Scientific predictions that never came true

Factual Questions
61

I would just like to voice my support for sailor and astorian. As this thread seems to show, the battle against ignorance is still long from won. Commercial radio is generally abhorrent, and the new trend of giant radio conglomerates has made it even worse. It is usually filled with inflammatory cretins spouting inanities between the overly-frequent ads. And the American public in general (and the commercial radio listening public in particular, I would guess) are embarrassingly illiterate about science. It is hardly helpful to aggravate matters by spreading half-true urban legends.

I am always amazed how a civilization so enamoured of technology can be so blisteringly ignorant and disrespectful to science. Cell phones, computers, the Internet, medical advances, 900-channel digital cable, even bloody radio are all possible only because science has been so incredibly insightful in discovering the way the world works. And then people turn around and make fun of the stereotype of the overreacting crazy scientist. Millions of transistors and billions of electrons dancing in a perfectly coordinated ballet are hardly likely to be the end result of the work of a bunch of people who can’t reach a logical consensus.

Most of the examples so far given in this thread have been individuals shooting their mouths off, bad reporting, or unqualified individuals making predictions. Economic prognostication is hardly science. Einstein suspecting the atom bomb to be unwieldy, the prediction that steam ships could not cross the Atlantic, and the like are problems dealing with technology and engineering, not basic science. And predictions of the future are innately inaccurate, whether made by scientists, sociologists, politicians, or anybody else.

Has science made mistakes in the past? Certainly. Do I think these should be censored? Of course not. But I hardly think it’s admirable or advisable to present poorly explained, out of context half-truths and cheap shots about science to a population dependent upon but woefully ignorant of science and scientific methods merely for cheap laughs and ratings points.

Incidentally, the moon is both falling towards the earth and getting farther away. An orbit can be viewed as something “falling” towards a body – due to gravity – at exactly the rate that the curve of the body falls away. I.e., the body in orbit is essentially falling “around” the central body. The orbit of the moon is getting larger – i.e., it is getting farther away – due to tidal effects. The friction of the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, and this energy is being transferred to the moon’s orbital velocity, thereby making it’s orbit larger, albeit at the rate of only a few centimeters a year.

-b

62

While I agree that there’s no reason to cast science in a bad light or to discredit scientists en masse, I still think there’s something to be said for remembering the mistakes of the past. With all the shiny new things science has recently made possible, it’s easy to forget that scientists are wrong at least as often as they are right.

That having been said, I can’t believe that no one has brought up phlogiston. Back before chemists knew about oxygen, they had to come up with an explanation for combustion. They predicted the existense of a substance called phlogiston, which is invisible, odorless etc. and is present to some degree in everything that can be set on fire. Since things generally gain weight when burned, they also supposed that phlogiston has negative weight.

I haven’t seen many theories as wrong as this one, though I admit that it makes plenty of sense in the absense of modern chemical techniques.

63

Someone here said the speed of light was constant. Einstein also predicted this. That “law” of physics stood like Gibralter until recently. Dr Lene Hau at the Harvard Physics lab. recently slowed, captured and contained light for a brief period in time,
by exposing it to near absolute zero temperatures. There were other variables involved obviously but the point is: the speed of light is not necessarily constant.

I will pull up a cite if need be. This discussion was held in a thread last week entitled
" … capture light in a mirrored box"

Hows that for an example? Thanks Cainxinth for the reminder.

64

First of all, a lot of the “mistakes” posted are mistakes in engineering, not ** Science**. The Cold/Hot Fusion, soylent green, shiny clothes and all that are purely engineering concerns, not sceintific. It s far easier to get an engineering prediction wrong becuase you are trying to estimate the timeframe of an “outstanding breakthrough” which simply cannot be done.

As for Science, I remember a possible apocyphal (sp?) anecdote that when scientists were about to unleash the first nuclear chain reaction, they calculated that there was approximatley a 1/50 chance that the reaction would make “stable” atoms unstable and lead to a chain reaction that would annihalate the entire planet. Of course, faced with a chioce of them annihlating the planet and the GERMANS annihilating the planet, the choice was clear :).

65

I have a friend who explains the way electronics work thus: Electronic devices work with smoke which is contained in different components. The plants which manufacture these devices encapsulate the smoke in them. As long as the smoke remains in there, the device works. If you do something which causes the smoke to escape, the device stops working.

Sounds like a plausible explanation to me. Whenever any of my electric or electronic devices emitted a cloud of smoke it stopped working. :slight_smile:

66

You misunderstand the results of those experiments. Einstein’s constant is the speed of light in a vacuum. It has been know for centuries that light travels at different speeds in different mediums. See, for example

http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com/refractive-index.html

for the speed of light through air, water, and glass. Note that the speed of light is nearly one-third less through glass than through vacuum.

The significance of the experiment you mention is that they were able to produce a medium though which light travels to incredibly slow.

67

I love it when people tell me what I don’t understand.
Simply put, the guy asked for an example. I provided one, with a valid experiment. I assumed he’s not really interested in the physics.

If you need cites to read, check these out. They will explain why lightspeed is not constant, even in a vacuum!

http:www.space.com/php/popup/promo/newsite/noad_newsite_020709.html

http://www.whatwhyweb.com/physics/speed_of_light.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

and the last one is Harvard.com look in the Physics dept.

I thought my original example was a good one because many people understand that lightspeed changes in different mediums. Changes from 186,000 m/s to 100,000 m/s in space, water, glass etc. are often given as examples, but light speed (IS or has been) accepted as a constant in physics. One of the few things that are.

The experiment I mentioned was not a minimal change, it was practically stopped. Less than 1 mile/hour…okay.

Anyway, sorry if I wasn’t clear at first. Hope this helps.

68

I apologize for my bluntness, but I’m afraid that I must again express my doubt with respect to your comprehension of the information that you recount.

None of your cites “explain why lightspeed is not constant, even in a vacuum.” Taken in order:

— I could not load the first site.

— The second cite describes a particular scientist’s theory, evidently not yet accepted by the mainstream, that the speed of light was greater early in the universe’s history: "Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light – 300 million metres per second – is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes. " Even if his theory is true, I don’t see that he is claiming that the speed of light is changing now, or that it has changed in the last few billion years.

— The second cite is a description of some of the assumptions physicists make to justify the definitions of the SI units. Among these, it notes, is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. The article concludes: “Finally we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; In the light of well tested theories of physics it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.” This conclusion is somewhat at odds with your claim. (The article did bring to mind another caveat I should have made in my declaration, though. The speed of light through a vacuum is constant when observed from an inertial reference frame.)

— Your third cite appears to be a creationist web site. I lack the expertise to critique their particular arguments, but I do know that creationism is decidedly not mainstream science. I note also the following: One of the papers was published by a mathematician, not a physcist, in a journal entitled GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, which sounds from the title like a journal devoted to undermining Einsteinian mechanics. One was presented at a conference entitled “PITTSBURGH CONFERENCE ON CREATIONISM”. And finally, one was written by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, the fellow who, along with Targ, was fooled in so-called “controlled” experiments in the laboratory by Uri Gellar in the '70.

— Your fourth cite consists almost entirely of a verbatim copy of your second cite, including the conclusion directly contradicting your claim.

Finally, you claim that support for your assertions can by found at Havard.com. Please forgive my skepticism regarding this. In light of the fruitlessness of the above “references”, I find that I cannot justify hunting down this ill-cited support. If you still wish to claim it as evidence, please give a specific web address for the page on which it can be found.

69

Well, I screwed up my enumeration of t-keela’s cites. Please bump each one after the first “second cite” down by one.

70

The Y2K bug would bring down civilization as we know it.

71

I love the Cerf and Navasky book, but even they managed to screw up. They repeat the old story about a turn-of-thecentury director of the U.S. Patent Office saying that “everything that can be invented has been invented”. Worse, their book was used as a source when this remark was repeated in other books and even advertisements.

It ain’t true. There was an excellent article examining it and refuting it in The Skeptical Inquirer several years back.

72

Sorry ultrafilter, but they are!
I didn’t think so either, but scotth showed me the light in an enlightening exchange of posts in the thread [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2302519#post2302462” Illogic of Frozen Moon Theory

Measurements show that the moon-earth distance currently increases by 3.8cm / year.

73

Bugger!
I did preview!!
I did!

The URL should be:Illogic of Frozen Moon Theory

74

ok now, i think a lot of you have totally misconstrued the OP’s point. i don’t believe that he (she?) had any intention of a smear campaign against scientists. far from. there was no mention in the original post of “let’s laugh at those stupid scientists and their crazy predictions that haven’t come true.”

this is how the human mind works guys…“gee, scientists once said the earth was flat. hmm. i wonder what other widespread notions have been disproved by more recent ADVANCES.” notice here that i say advances, not enlightenments.

the OP is a reasonable question, albeit by giving a prediction that may come true (and wouldn’t a good place to dispel ignorance be here? look at the prediction i heard, oh no that’s not true, rather than jumping all over him just because the BBC (which is not another version of the Star, thank you very much) happened to print something which made him think that an asteroid might hit.

i’ll just repeat again. this thread is NOT for making fun of scientists, and i don’t think anybody has done that, even with all their anecdotes. all it is is saying what has been proved and disproved by advances.

that being said, i have nothing else to contribute since others have mentioned all the ones i could think of.

75

What are the chances of this being one? It’s from todays (UK) Guardian:>

>> AND FINALLY

Boeing has signed up a Russian scientist researching anti-gravity
devices in the hope of harnessing technology that could produce
almost fuel-free flight and knock asteroids off course.

Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov claims he has reduced gravity by 2% by putting
objects above a superconducting disc and powerful electromagnets. The
scientific community - slave as it is to the laws of physics - has
viewed his findings with scepticism, but Boeing feels there may be
something there.

If the experiments succeed, the technology could aid space flight, or
could pull planes out of the sky or anti-ballistic missiles
harmlessly into the ocean.

76

Popup: I stand corrected.

77

owl, if you’re referring to this story, I feel obliged to point out the company sponsoring the research is British Aerospace (BAe), not The Boeing Company.

sivalensis - Hear, hear. I still don’t see how the OP is a big slap in the face of the scientific institution, even after reading all the opinions posted here.

78

t-keela, c is a constant and always will be. Anything else would necessarily violate Maxwell’s Equations and relativity, both of which are theories that would need some pretty fancy-pants ways of explaining away. None of your sites even come close to saying that the speed of light in a vacuum isn’t necessarily constant. No, not one. The site for the creationist is nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense. One of the papers says that the measured values of the constant have changed historically, therefore the speed must not be a constant. Utter baloney. Another paper on the site says that red-shift implies a changing speed of light. Also complete hooey.

In short, you have not provided the evidence you claimed to have had. The first working citation is the only one that has the littlest bit of credibility and that is pretty much speculation at this point and does not say anything about the speed of light changing… only that it may have been different in a different epoch. As it is a different epoch, and not our own, it’s pretty difficult to probe this concept. I won’t go into the details, but basically there’s many different ways to approach the issues he presents and a different speed of light is pretty far out there as far as what the implications would mean for physics. I’m not saying that he’s wrong, just we can’t really get at what exactly he wants to test.

79

Hmm…on the other hand, according to this article, Boeing is trying to court Podkletnov as well.

80

[Simpsons]
Well, sure, the Frinkiac 7 looks impressive, don’t TOUCH IT! But I predict that in the next 20 years, computers will become twice as powerful, 10 thousand times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.
[/Simpsons]