Thursday, September 5, 2013

// // Leave a Comment

Examples of Superficial Research with obvious results, however done by "Elite" institutes

Murphy's laws, toasts and tables

Recently physicists "have finally discovered" why the slices of bread in the majority of occasions fall on the side of the "cream". They made more than 100 tests with different slices, blah-blah-blah...

I remember I've asked that question myself and have found the probable answer by mental simulation of how the slice could be dropped (nearly the end of the table, while spreading the butter or whatever), and how the slice could rotate.

That's not a coin, it always starts falling with the creamed side up, and it's supposed not to have strong rotational forces and is usually either on the table or slightly above it.

The answer certainly doesn't require 100 tests before seeing the "physics" of falling from the table after dropping, it requires a bit of imagination and I suspect that thousands of physicists have answered the questions by a mental experiment and didn't publish it, because it's too trivial - a part of the irony of this "paradox" is that the reason is obvious.

In order to mark something obvious as science though - it should be "backed" with explicit pedantic nonsense, otherwise "it's not proven by data". 

Besides, the real problem is that toast falls on the ground. Falling on the other side is a disaster either... :)

How sleep deprivation changes facial features

This work has found that after sleep deprivation people look more tired (!), more threatening, less socially attractive etc. and it may affect the way other people see you and react etc.

WOW, really?! That's an amazing discovery, we had no idea!

They have taken pictures of 20 people's fresh faces after 8 hours of sleep and their faces after 31 hours without sleep and asked people to measure this and that. "The scientists then asked 40 other individuals to rate the pictures according to 10 different facial features, fatigue, and sadness. "*

They admit that "it's well known from a long time" (from the beginning of time, in my opinion), but now the specific features have been quantitatively measured.

Well, good morning guys...

Without reading those ground-braking research I could generalize in one sentence, that sleep deprived face looks "tired", it often has more shadows under the eyes, the facial muscles have probably lost their tone and are extended and the skin of the face looks flabby etc., the eyelids look "tired" as well - falling down etc. Well - I think it was depicted even in a calssical episode of "Tom and Jerry". :)

Actually I also have my own "research data" for that extraordinary discovery - I have taken pictures of myself after sleep deprivation, to "see quantatively the difference". However I wouldn't show those pictures, namely due to those differences... :)

They look scary etc. etc. :)That's why one should avoid showing off in public when too tired - it's an everyday wisdom...

As of the data needed to make the research - they did it the way the textbooks say. However, there are simpler ways - like I've done, or open facebook and browse the pictures of your more "socially active" friends who post in the end of parties and when looking fresh - plenty of data without need of specially set up "experiments".

There's another way too - browse for such pictures of celebrities on parties, without make-up, with make-up in movies etc., to see the difference - i.e. how they "should" look when they're supposed to look attractive, "trustworty", "...", and how they look after being captured drunk, without make-up in the morning etc. You may exaggerate the trends you have noticed.

The above is an example regarding what I was talking about in the post about the guys in the AGI community, who lack the luxury of  money/funding,  partners or organization to execute all the experiments they want and imagine to test their theories.

In many cases a clever one can get the same results by a few seconds of thought experiments or by taking two pictures of one person, or a few pictures of a few persons, and then summing the results in 5 minutes.

Well, yes - however your higher intelligence and understanding and rapid focus on the right questions and answers won't get you rewarded  in that case - you do it too easy and too "unscientifically"...

See also:

0 коментара: