Israeli physicist "accidentally" sets planetry scince back a decade

[Anonymous No.15319421]

Michael Paul of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was seeking fame for making a spectacular discovery and cared nothing about the inevitable consequences of his lying
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/30/one-small-error-for-a-physicist-one-giant-blunder-for-planetary-science/

For a decade, scientists have been scratching their heads when trying to put a date on primeval events like the crystallization of the magma ocean on the moon or the early formation of Earth’s continental crust.

Their problem? A revised estimate of the half-life of a radioactive isotope called samarium-146 that is used to gauge the age of ancient rocks.

The updated value, published in 2012 in Science, shortened samarium-146’s half-life by a whopping 35 million years, down to 68 million years from the standard estimate of 103. This reset the clock on the solar system’s early history and suggested the oldest rocks on Earth could have formed tens of millions of years earlier than previously thought.

“It means I discovererd that everything was forming more quickly,” Michael Paul (pictured) of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a coauthor of the Science paper, told New Scientist at the time.

But as researchers began using the new half-life in their calculations, their results turned out not to match those obtained with other so-called isotopic clocks. The ensuing uncertainty led many to take a belt-and-suspenders approach, using both the old and the new half-life estimates, according to Richard W. Carlson, staff scientist emeritus at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Earth & Planets Laboratory.

“As dating methods improved, the discrepancy when using the 68-million-year half-life was becoming clear,” Carlson, who was not involved in the Science study, told Retraction Watch.

The confusion may be down to a incompetence, it now appears.

[Anonymous No.15319422]

According to Paul, he and his colleagues were recently alerted to an “inconsistency” in their paper by “an independent group” that asked not to be identified. (Paul would not provide any specifics unless we shared our story ahead of publication, which in the interest of editorial integrity we refused to do.) He told us that the finding:

>relied on an analysis of the information contained in the original publication and the detailed supplementary material adjoined to it. It is utterly surprising that it had eluded up to this “late point” all co-authors, reviewers and readers of the original article who could have reached the same conclusion based on published material.

Paul’s group determined that the problem had been caused by a mass-spectrometry measurement that had gone wrong for unknown reasons. After deciding to pull their report, they notified members of the research community, including Carnegie’s Carlson, about the impending retraction. (Paul’s more detailed comments to us can be found here.)

Their paper, “A shorter 146Sm half-life measured and implications for 146Sm-142Nd chronology in the Solar System,” was retracted on March 30. The article has been cited 127 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

“I give the authors credit for being upfront about their mistake and retracting the result when they recognized the error in their measurement,” Carlson told us. “These are very difficult measurements on an extremely rare isotope.”

He added: “I’m not sure that 103 million years is the accurate value of the 146Sm half-life, but it clearly is closer to the true value than is the 68-million-years value.”

[Anonymous No.15319424]

does anyone buy this guys claims of "it was all a big accident"?

[Anonymous No.15319426]

Jewish trash wasting money of tax payers all day everyday

[Anonymous No.15319436]

>>15319421
yeah and Fermi never returned his nobel prize from 1938 either

[Anonymous No.15319638]

the eternal jew strikes again

jew "science"

not even once

[Anonymous No.15319657]

>>15319424
I sure hope not, it's farcical. If you get a result that is that far off the previously accepted value, then the first thing you do is check everything you did, including your equipment.

[Anonymous No.15319670]

>>15319657
>>15319657
amazing that the entire sphere of planetary science just accepted his result without doing anything to try to replicate it.
they must all be a bunch of low iq bozos, probably just saw it as an excuse to publish new versions of old papers by substituting the wrong half life into the calculations of previous publications.

[Anonymous No.15319682]

>>15319670
>probably just saw it as an excuse to publish new versions of old papers by substituting the wrong half life into the calculations of previous publications.
Quite likely. Knew the new number was bullshit but didn't care. The entire system is rotten to the core.

[Anonymous No.15319786]

>>15319421
>there isn't enough time for all those gajillions of rocks to crystallise, it's all a hoax

there is truly no escape from the chuds

[Anonymous No.15319842]

>>15319786

[Anonymous No.15319992]

>>15319421
>The ensuing uncertainty led many to take a belt-and-suspenders approach, using both the old and the new half-life estimates, according to Richard W. Carlson, staff scientist emeritus at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Earth & Planets Laboratory.
Did he really set back planetary science a decade then? It sounds like most people were skeptical of his results.

[Anonymous No.15320250]

>>15319657
they don't call it the replication crisis because people go around double checking experimental results

[Anonymous No.15320274]

>>15320250
They call it a replication crisis because that sounds better than "fraud crisis". The terminology "replication crisis" shifts attention to those failing to replicate results, away from those producing fraudulent results.

[Anonymous No.15320282]

>>15319426
>>15319638
oy vey shut it down?
https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-8.22-001-023:9

[Anonymous No.15320294]

>>15320282
Screenshot it or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15320641]

>>15320274
>They call it a replication crisis because that sounds better than "fraud crisis"
along the lines of mostly peaceful riots

[Anonymous No.15321602]

>>15320641
Safe
&
Effective

[Anonymous No.15323835]

>>15319426
Jewish taxpayers

[Anonymous No.15324394]

>>15323835

[Anonymous No.15324420]

>>15319426
Money wasting is elemental to the progress of science

[Anonymous No.15324443]

I would want to see polfags try to find regular uranium half life given the modern tools and 1 kg of uranium sample. You are so incompetent you would have 3x larger error than him and also get terminal radiation poisoning

[Anonymous No.15324449]

>>15324443
go to >>>/pol/ if the only thing you want to discuss is politics

[Anonymous No.15325221]

>>15319670
>amazing that the entire sphere of planetary science just accepted his result
Many didn't. Instead they published results with "old" and "new" values for decay time.

[Anonymous No.15327079]

More evidence to never trust a tribal member to be truthful.
Replication crisis started when the tribe took over academia

[Anonymous No.15327159]

>>15319670
There is much incentive to actually reproduce the work of others.

[Anonymous No.15327166]

>>15327159
*Isn't

[Anonymous No.15327178]

>>15324449
I want to discuss science but your antisemitism is showing. Cant you see how small the relative error, the %error is given how rare the isotope is?

Its like fat people who go to mcdonalds claim a michelin 3 star cook cant cook.

[Anonymous No.15328382]

>>15319421
>the goyims will never know heh heh heh

[Anonymous No.15329765]

>>15320282
good link

[Anonymous No.15329769]

>>15327159
There is sometimes, but only in fields where something physical is created. That's how superconductivity frauds get caught. People want to use their results to do industrial work, and then they fail to produce anything.

[Anonymous No.15330484]

>>15329769
the field in question in this ITT thread produces nothing of value and never will, it makes no difference to anyone if they publish lies or not

[Anonymous No.15330524]

>>15319421
>>15319422
If they intended to be fradulent fraudsters, they would never pull the paper and would just pretend that nothing's wrong.

>The article has been cited 127 times according to WoS
Pffffffrt!

[Anonymous No.15330533]

>>15327178
>Cant you see how small the relative error, the %error is given how rare the isotope is?
Doesnt matter because experimentalists are supposed to be aware of the limits fof their techniques and equipment and report error bars. If this kike is such an incompetent phony then he has no business reporting isotopes lifetimes. And no, i dont have to be better because it isnt my job to report isotopes lifetimes.
He should be fired and likely fed to lions

[Anonymous No.15332543]

>>15330533
…and thats how AIDS was finally transmitted to the big cats

[Anonymous No.15332690]

>>15330533
Your job is to clean the tables in mcdonald's. As the customers havent complained yet, you are free to judge anyone. I see it now and I apologize.

[Anonymous No.15332884]

>>15332690
What do you think you accomplish by insulting me? Everyone that reads your post intuitively understand you dont have any argument.
Is it just because it makes you feel good?

[Anonymous No.15332892]

>>15332884
a troll escaped from /b/

[Anonymous No.15334924]

>>15320282
thanks for the link

[Anonymous No.15335595]

2017 Nature paper that used AI to identify suicide risk from brain scans retracted
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/04/06/high-profile-paper-that-used-ai-to-identify-suicide-risk-from-brain-scans-retracted-for-flawed-methods/

[Anonymous No.15336029]

>>15327178
Why was the paper retracted if the error wasn't an egregious mistake? Do you really think it because of >muh antisemitism?
Maybe you're the one with the racial bigotry problem