Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist

2013-03-05 Thread Terry Blanton 
The key give away is that the Pioneer Anomaly has been solved (to most
everyone's satisfaction):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist

2013-03-05 Thread Alain Sepeda 
Anyway that is interesting to look back in the mirror.

I've found such test balloon articles from mainstream sources, after 2009
SPAWAR revival, 2005 (something happened in that period... Seen
Tsinghua replication of NASA GRC, a few other papers... Dunno what raised
such hope).

I understand why old apes are so careful an afraid the devil gets back in
its box, again. youg apes, or de-cryogenizated apes like me, should be
careful.

2013/3/5 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com

 Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1]
  to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original
 article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it
 was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome
 to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ...

Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist

2013-03-05 Thread Jed Rothwell 

Mark Gibbs wrote:


Bugger. Missed that.


Good article though. Worth revisiting. So is this one:

Daviss, B., /Reasonable Doubt/, in /New Scientist/. 2003. p. 36.

This is about Szpak, Pam Boss, and Mel Miles. Among other things it 
describes how they demoted Mel from being a Distinguished Fellow of the 
Institute to stock room clerk because he had the temerity to publish a 
paper on cold fusion. He got the message and retired.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist

2013-03-04 Thread Jed Rothwell 
Please note, that's from 2005.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist

2013-03-04 Thread Mark Gibbs 
Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1]
 to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original
article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it
was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome
to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ...

[m]

[1]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true


On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Please note, that's from 2005.

 - Jed