Topic: Science
+Anonymous A — 1.9 year ago #65,731
Hukum Kegravitian Semesta Newton menyatakan daya graviti antara dua jasad adalah berkadar terus dengan hasil darab jisim kedua-dua jasad dan berkadar songsang dengan kuasa dua Jarak di antara pusat dua jasad tersebut.
Formula berkaitan Hukum Kegravitian Semesta Newton:
[math]F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[\math]
Formula berkaitan Hukum Kegravitian Semesta Newton:
[math]F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[\math]
+Anonymous B — 1.9 year ago, 1 week later[T] [B] #658,768
Alley Oop By V.T. Hamlin
OSCAR BOOM : "AMOS IS RIGHT, DOC! THIS SWITCHING MODULE OF YOURS HAS TAPPED A NEW REALM OF EXISTENCE!"
AMOS BRONSON : "I THINK IT DESERVES FURTHER STUDY, ELBERT!"
OSCAR BOOM : "SO DO I! WHY, IF WE COULD GET SOME PHOTOS OF DELFON, THEY'D BE WORTH A FORTUNE!"
DR ELBERT WONMUG : "SLOW DOWN, OSCAR! THERE'S ONE THING I'M AFRAID YOU'VE BOTH OVERLOOKED..."
OSCAR BOOM : "WHAT'S THAT?"
DR ELBERT WONMUG : "WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THERE AGAIN!"
OSCAR BOOM : "AMOS IS RIGHT, DOC! THIS SWITCHING MODULE OF YOURS HAS TAPPED A NEW REALM OF EXISTENCE!"
AMOS BRONSON : "I THINK IT DESERVES FURTHER STUDY, ELBERT!"
OSCAR BOOM : "SO DO I! WHY, IF WE COULD GET SOME PHOTOS OF DELFON, THEY'D BE WORTH A FORTUNE!"
DR ELBERT WONMUG : "SLOW DOWN, OSCAR! THERE'S ONE THING I'M AFRAID YOU'VE BOTH OVERLOOKED..."
OSCAR BOOM : "WHAT'S THAT?"
DR ELBERT WONMUG : "WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THERE AGAIN!"
+Anonymous C — 1.8 year ago, 3 weeks later, 1 month after the original post[T] [B] #660,547
相对论
面临挑战
在现代科学领域内,一个几乎是神圣不可侵犯的理论 - - 相对论,最近正面临美国一些科学家的严峻挑战。近年来,用来解释宇宙结构的科学校型,都是依据科学巨匠爱因斯坦在二十世紀初期提出的相对论而来的。
由太阳物理学家西尔教授领导的三位天文学家说,他们在爱因斯坦的计算里发现了一个错误, 因而有百分之九十五的把握, 证明爱因斯坦的相对论不正确。他们认为, 太阳的形状和活动,有些不规则的现象, 因而影响到太阳的引力作用, 进一步影响到水星的运行, 而爱因斯坦的计算, 因当时天文学的局限, 没有也不可能考虑到这一因素。但天休物理学认为, 一个理论的成立, 容不得计算上分毫的差错, 如果不是完全对,那么就是完全错。
向爱因斯坦的这一挑战,引起了世界科学界的极大兴趣和关注。如果西尔教授是对的,那么, 整个科学界将面临巨大的更新和变革。
面临挑战
在现代科学领域内,一个几乎是神圣不可侵犯的理论 - - 相对论,最近正面临美国一些科学家的严峻挑战。近年来,用来解释宇宙结构的科学校型,都是依据科学巨匠爱因斯坦在二十世紀初期提出的相对论而来的。
由太阳物理学家西尔教授领导的三位天文学家说,他们在爱因斯坦的计算里发现了一个错误, 因而有百分之九十五的把握, 证明爱因斯坦的相对论不正确。他们认为, 太阳的形状和活动,有些不规则的现象, 因而影响到太阳的引力作用, 进一步影响到水星的运行, 而爱因斯坦的计算, 因当时天文学的局限, 没有也不可能考虑到这一因素。但天休物理学认为, 一个理论的成立, 容不得计算上分毫的差错, 如果不是完全对,那么就是完全错。
向爱因斯坦的这一挑战,引起了世界科学界的极大兴趣和关注。如果西尔教授是对的,那么, 整个科学界将面临巨大的更新和变革。
+Anonymous D — 1.8 year ago, 2 weeks later, 1 month after the original post[T] [B] #662,224
Time travel possible, Hawking concedes
LONDON - Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the world's top cosmic physicists, has accepted the possibility of time travel - an idea he had dismissed for years.
"If you combine Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory it does begin to seem a possibility," he was quoted as saying by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
But the Cambridge University mathematics professor added that he still thought it would probably never be practical.
Prof Hawking previously ridiculed the idea, basing his argument on science and ordinary logic and saying something which could let you kill your ancestors or alter your past was unthinkable.
"The best evidence that time travel will never be possible is that we have not been invaded by hordes of tourists from the future," he said two years ago.
But he spells out his change of heart in a foreword for The Physics Of Star Trek, a book by US astronomer Lawrence Krauss which is to be published next month, saying: "One of the consequences of rapid interstellar travel would be that one could also travel back in time."
Einstein's belief that time and space were closely related and were both affected by gravity sparked speculation that time travel could be possible, a view an increasing number of astronomers and physicists have signed up to in recent years.
"His theories led to the idea that enormous gravitational fields, such as those found around collapsed stars known as black holes, could reverse the flow of time," the Sunday Times said.
However, harnessing enough energy for a machine to send travelers back through time would pose a major problem. - Reuter.
LONDON - Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the world's top cosmic physicists, has accepted the possibility of time travel - an idea he had dismissed for years.
"If you combine Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory it does begin to seem a possibility," he was quoted as saying by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
But the Cambridge University mathematics professor added that he still thought it would probably never be practical.
Prof Hawking previously ridiculed the idea, basing his argument on science and ordinary logic and saying something which could let you kill your ancestors or alter your past was unthinkable.
"The best evidence that time travel will never be possible is that we have not been invaded by hordes of tourists from the future," he said two years ago.
But he spells out his change of heart in a foreword for The Physics Of Star Trek, a book by US astronomer Lawrence Krauss which is to be published next month, saying: "One of the consequences of rapid interstellar travel would be that one could also travel back in time."
Einstein's belief that time and space were closely related and were both affected by gravity sparked speculation that time travel could be possible, a view an increasing number of astronomers and physicists have signed up to in recent years.
"His theories led to the idea that enormous gravitational fields, such as those found around collapsed stars known as black holes, could reverse the flow of time," the Sunday Times said.
However, harnessing enough energy for a machine to send travelers back through time would pose a major problem. - Reuter.
+Anonymous E — 1.8 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 month after the original post[T] [B] #662,245
@previous (D)> LONDON - Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the world's top cosmic physicists, has accepted the possibility of time travel - an idea he had dismissed for years.
+Anonymous F — 1.8 year ago, 1 day later, 1 month after the original post[T] [B] #662,513
+Anonymous G — 1.6 year ago, 2 months later, 3 months after the original post[T] [B] #670,528
Vacuum collapse: The Possible End Of Everything In ‘Lower Decks’ : http://aiptcomics.com/2025/02/11/vacuum-collapse-star-trek-lower-decks
+Anonymous H — 1.6 year ago, 16 hours later, 4 months after the original post[T] [B] #670,580
I’m gonna blow all y’all’s minds when I drop this scientific knowledge.
A hotdog is a sandwich.
A hotdog is a sandwich.
·Anonymous E — 1.6 year ago, 30 minutes later, 4 months after the original post[T] [B] #670,581
+Anonymous I — 1.5 year ago, 1 month later, 5 months after the original post[T] [B] #673,582
Einstein hade rätt om gravitationen
Vad är skillnaden mellan Newtons och Einsteins gravita- tionsteori? Hur stor är skillna- den och vad beror den på? /Joa-kim Meier
Newton beskriver gravitation som en kraft - den kraft som får äpplen att falla till marken och månen att stanna kvar i ba- na kring jorden. All materia at-traherar annan materia via denna kraft.
Newtons kraft har dock ett problem: Den verkar ögonblickligen över stora avstånd. Om exem- pelvis solen plötsligt skulle flyt- ta sig, skulle jordens bana ome- delbart rubbas. Detta strider mot Einsteins speciella relativitetsteori, enligt vilken ingen på- verkan kan förmedlas snabbare än ljuset. Newtons teori kan därför inte vara riktig.
Det behövs, visar det sig, en drastiskt annorlunda teori för att lösa problemet: Einsteins allmänna relativitetsteori. Här finns ingen gravitationskraft. I stället är det rummets eller rumtidens - krökning som lig- ger bakom gravitationen. Tunga kroppar tenderar att röra sig mot varandra, inte för att de på- verkar varandra med en kraft, utan för att de kröker rumtiden i sitt närområde. När exempelvis månen kretsar runt jorden, gör den det inte på grund av någon kraft, utan för att den färdas rakt fram i den av jorden krökta rumtiden.
Det råder i dag inget tvivel om att det är Einsteins teori som är den korrekta. I många situatio- ner - som fallrörelse nära jor- dytan eller planeters banrörelse ger dock de två teorierna näs- tan identiska resultat. Eftersom det är mycket enklare att göra beräkningar enligt Newtons te- ori använder fysiker den fortfa- rande när det går. Men i extrema situationer, som i närheten av neutronstjärnor eller svarta hål, fungerar inte Newtons teori. Den kan heller inte användas för att besvara kosmologiska frågor. Därtill finns fenomen som inte alls ryms i Newtons beskriv- ning, såsom gravitationsvågor eller det faktum att tiden går olika snabbt på olika höjd.
/Sören Holst, teoretisk fy-siker, Stockholms universitet
"Eftersom det är mycket enklare att göra beräkningar enligt Newtons teori använ- der fysiker den fortfarande när det går."
Vad är skillnaden mellan Newtons och Einsteins gravita- tionsteori? Hur stor är skillna- den och vad beror den på? /Joa-kim Meier
Newton beskriver gravitation som en kraft - den kraft som får äpplen att falla till marken och månen att stanna kvar i ba- na kring jorden. All materia at-traherar annan materia via denna kraft.
Newtons kraft har dock ett problem: Den verkar ögonblickligen över stora avstånd. Om exem- pelvis solen plötsligt skulle flyt- ta sig, skulle jordens bana ome- delbart rubbas. Detta strider mot Einsteins speciella relativitetsteori, enligt vilken ingen på- verkan kan förmedlas snabbare än ljuset. Newtons teori kan därför inte vara riktig.
Det behövs, visar det sig, en drastiskt annorlunda teori för att lösa problemet: Einsteins allmänna relativitetsteori. Här finns ingen gravitationskraft. I stället är det rummets eller rumtidens - krökning som lig- ger bakom gravitationen. Tunga kroppar tenderar att röra sig mot varandra, inte för att de på- verkar varandra med en kraft, utan för att de kröker rumtiden i sitt närområde. När exempelvis månen kretsar runt jorden, gör den det inte på grund av någon kraft, utan för att den färdas rakt fram i den av jorden krökta rumtiden.
Det råder i dag inget tvivel om att det är Einsteins teori som är den korrekta. I många situatio- ner - som fallrörelse nära jor- dytan eller planeters banrörelse ger dock de två teorierna näs- tan identiska resultat. Eftersom det är mycket enklare att göra beräkningar enligt Newtons te- ori använder fysiker den fortfa- rande när det går. Men i extrema situationer, som i närheten av neutronstjärnor eller svarta hål, fungerar inte Newtons teori. Den kan heller inte användas för att besvara kosmologiska frågor. Därtill finns fenomen som inte alls ryms i Newtons beskriv- ning, såsom gravitationsvågor eller det faktum att tiden går olika snabbt på olika höjd.
/Sören Holst, teoretisk fy-siker, Stockholms universitet
"Eftersom det är mycket enklare att göra beräkningar enligt Newtons teori använ- der fysiker den fortfarande när det går."
+Anonymous J — 1.5 year ago, 1 week later, 5 months after the original post[T] [B] #673,958
·Anonymous J — 1.5 year ago, 26 minutes later, 5 months after the original post[T] [B] #673,960
Black or white?+Anonymous K — 1.4 year ago, 3 weeks later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,510
Microsoft has unveiled Majorana 1, a quantum chip designed to improve the reliability and scalability of qubits, marking a significant leap in quantum computing. The chip utilizes Majorana particles and topological conductors, a novel approach to qubit stability. With this advancement, Microsoft aims to develop a fully functional quantum computer by 2027-2029.
+Anonymous L — 1.4 year ago, 1 day later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,555
Neil Degrasse Tyson said once
·Fact Checker — 1.4 year ago, 1 hour later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,559
@674,510 (K)> Majorana 1
The hardware demonstrations currently available only demonstrate a method for readout, and do not demonstrate any quantum processing on the zero-mode. Moreover, the publicly available demonstration does not test coherence of their two-level quantum system. This is in contrast to other QPUs, which typically demonstrate both coherent quantum information and coherent logical operations on that quantum information.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 1.4 year ago, 16 hours later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,583
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 1.4 year ago, 1 day later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,606
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 1.4 year ago, 23 hours later, 6 months after the original post[T] [B] #674,629
+Anonymous O — 1.1 year ago, 3 months later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,365
FRANK AND ERNEST
MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND HEALTH
FRANK & ERNEST ARE LOOKING AT THE HUMAN LAYOUT CHART INSIDE THE MUSEUM.
ERNEST : "THIS SAYS THE BRAIN WORKS ON ELECTRICAL IMPULSES."
FRANK : "MAYBE WE'VE GOT OUR BATTERIES INSTALLED WRONG."
MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND HEALTH
FRANK & ERNEST ARE LOOKING AT THE HUMAN LAYOUT CHART INSIDE THE MUSEUM.
ERNEST : "THIS SAYS THE BRAIN WORKS ON ELECTRICAL IMPULSES."
FRANK : "MAYBE WE'VE GOT OUR BATTERIES INSTALLED WRONG."
+396 — 1.1 year ago, 5 hours later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,387
Český botanik Roezl,který byl mým vzdáleným strýcem se sice nezabýval časoprostorem ani teorií relativity,ale objevil v Peru několik vzácných orchidejí,které po něm nesou jeho jméno. Několik jich i dovezl do Evropy a USA a díky němu tak zahrady vypadají mnohem lépe.
+Anonymous Q — 1.1 year ago, 5 hours later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,391
·Testes — 1.1 year ago, 1 week later, 10 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,448
+Anonymous R — 1 year ago, 2 weeks later, 11 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,601
·Testes — 1 year ago, 1 day later, 11 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,626
@previous (R)
> Nobel Prize
> youtube.com/watch?v=onr80iOoEXs
>
>
> What is this?
Practice makes for most perfect. Except for the very end, where she uses teeth to the Lorena Bobbit Max
> Nobel Prize
> youtube.com/watch?v=onr80iOoEXs
>
>
> What is this?
Practice makes for most perfect. Except for the very end, where she uses teeth to the Lorena Bobbit Max
+Anonymous S — 8 months ago, 3 months later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #678,537
SIX CHIX BANNERMAN, XUNISE, KONAR, LAWTON, PATRINOS & PIRO
WOMAN 1 : "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"
WOMAN 2 : "I'M TRYING TO SEND HOW COLD I AM BACK IN TIME TO WHEN I WAS SWEATING BULLETS IN AUGUST."
WOMAN 1 : "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"
WOMAN 2 : "I'M TRYING TO SEND HOW COLD I AM BACK IN TIME TO WHEN I WAS SWEATING BULLETS IN AUGUST."
+Anonymous T — 7 months ago, 3 weeks later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #678,836
Japan has successfully became the first nation to demonstrate space-based solar power generation, wirelessly transmitting energy from a 180kg orbital satellite down to a ground station. The OHISAMA ("Sun") project used solar panels in low Earth orbit to convert sunlight into microwaves, which were beamed to Earth to provide a constant, clean energy source unaffected by weather or night cycles.
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 7 months ago, 1 day later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #678,839
![[citation needed].png](https://tinychan.net/img/1380709293367132.png "[citation needed].png")
+Anonymous U — 7 months ago, 3 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #678,841
@678,836 (T)
Between this stuff and entire building near-field charging I'll believe it when I see it. Same with free wifi in every city that was promised before Comcast lobbyists (I assume) did their work.
Between this stuff and entire building near-field charging I'll believe it when I see it. Same with free wifi in every city that was promised before Comcast lobbyists (I assume) did their work.
+Anonymous V — 6 months ago, 4 weeks later, 1.4 year after the original post[T] [B] #679,134
+Anonymous W — 4 weeks ago, 5 months later, 1.9 year after the original post[T] [B] #681,562
Junk science drives wrongful convictions. That's not justice.
Van Jones and David Safavian
Opinion contributors
Anyone who has watched an episode of "Law & Order" knows that prosecutors often rely on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats. They tell juries about microscopic hair comparisons, bite mark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that's supposedly conclusive proof of guilt.
Except, too often, it's not.
Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome. Yes, DNA is reliable (if collected properly). Too often, however, junk science is dressed up as factual evidence for jurors who don't know any better.
In real life, however, courts accept phony forensics, often with troubling consequences.
'Shaken baby syndrome' and the junk science courts still lean on
In 2023, Nick Flannery was charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son, Arlo, suddenly collapsed in a Cincinnati suburb.
In the emergency room, Arlo's doctors found bleeding in the baby's brain and suggested it was caused by "shaken baby syndrome.
Arlo had no bruises, no fractures, no skull injuries and no signs of neglect. His parents were the sole caregivers, with no history of abuse. There was no evidence whatsoever. It was the proverbial dog that didn't bark. The allegation of shaken baby syndrome nevertheless set off a chain reaction.
The Flannery children were taken away. Independent medical experts reviewing the case found that a preexisting condition, which might have originated at birth and worsened over time, likely led to Arlo's bleeding and collapse.
Health records also showed unusual head growth and symptoms consistent with an ongoing medical condition, rather than abusive trauma.
Intent on taking the case to a jury, prosecutors will argue that Arlo Flannery's injuries were from shaken baby syndrome, despite it being a long-disputed medical theory.
If convicted, Nick Flannery could face 12 years in prison.
Unreliable science contributes to 52% of wrongful convictions
The Flannery case is just one of many where unproven scientific theories are being used in criminal prosecutions.
Robert Roberson was just days away from a scheduled Oct. 16 execution for the alleged murder of his 2-year-old daughter through what prosecutors were simply convinced was shaken baby syndrome.
On Oct. 9, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped Roberson's execution because state law required convictions to be reopened if previously used forensic evidence had since been discredited or proven scientifically inaccurate.
Roberson will likely get a new trial, with the lead detective planning to testify about how unreliable shaken baby syndrome evidence is.
A week. That's how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.
Others, such as Josh Burns in Michigan and Andrew Roark in Texas, served years behind bars after found guilty of shaking their kids. Their convictions were reversed by appellate courts due to the unreliable nature of the science used to convict them.
To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned.
The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally.
But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts.
What states need to do
For our system of justice to work, state courts must follow the lead of federal courts by adopting the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which require forensic testimony to be based on "reliable scientific principles and methods." This rule empowers judges to filter out flawed evidence before it taints the jury.
Unfortunately, vigorous validation happens infrequently in state courts. That's why it is more important than ever for states to adopt evidence-based standards to ensure that only credible and vetted information is given to juries.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the courts were fair to every defendant. It is why we have jury trials in the first place. But the system only works when jurors are presented with trusted information rooted in sound science.
In "Law & Order," the right person is usually found guilty. In real life, that's not always the case.
If we are to have true justice, judges must be empowered to set a high bar to screen out junk science and protect the innocent. If states want to ensure that they get it right, they should adopt the approach set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Van Jones is an attorney, criminal justice advocate and TV personality. David Safavian is an attorney and a conservative activist.
Van Jones and David Safavian
Opinion contributors
Anyone who has watched an episode of "Law & Order" knows that prosecutors often rely on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats. They tell juries about microscopic hair comparisons, bite mark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that's supposedly conclusive proof of guilt.
Except, too often, it's not.
Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome. Yes, DNA is reliable (if collected properly). Too often, however, junk science is dressed up as factual evidence for jurors who don't know any better.
In real life, however, courts accept phony forensics, often with troubling consequences.
'Shaken baby syndrome' and the junk science courts still lean on
In 2023, Nick Flannery was charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son, Arlo, suddenly collapsed in a Cincinnati suburb.
In the emergency room, Arlo's doctors found bleeding in the baby's brain and suggested it was caused by "shaken baby syndrome.
Arlo had no bruises, no fractures, no skull injuries and no signs of neglect. His parents were the sole caregivers, with no history of abuse. There was no evidence whatsoever. It was the proverbial dog that didn't bark. The allegation of shaken baby syndrome nevertheless set off a chain reaction.
The Flannery children were taken away. Independent medical experts reviewing the case found that a preexisting condition, which might have originated at birth and worsened over time, likely led to Arlo's bleeding and collapse.
Health records also showed unusual head growth and symptoms consistent with an ongoing medical condition, rather than abusive trauma.
Intent on taking the case to a jury, prosecutors will argue that Arlo Flannery's injuries were from shaken baby syndrome, despite it being a long-disputed medical theory.
If convicted, Nick Flannery could face 12 years in prison.
Unreliable science contributes to 52% of wrongful convictions
The Flannery case is just one of many where unproven scientific theories are being used in criminal prosecutions.
Robert Roberson was just days away from a scheduled Oct. 16 execution for the alleged murder of his 2-year-old daughter through what prosecutors were simply convinced was shaken baby syndrome.
On Oct. 9, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped Roberson's execution because state law required convictions to be reopened if previously used forensic evidence had since been discredited or proven scientifically inaccurate.
Roberson will likely get a new trial, with the lead detective planning to testify about how unreliable shaken baby syndrome evidence is.
A week. That's how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.
Others, such as Josh Burns in Michigan and Andrew Roark in Texas, served years behind bars after found guilty of shaking their kids. Their convictions were reversed by appellate courts due to the unreliable nature of the science used to convict them.
To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned.
The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally.
But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts.
What states need to do
For our system of justice to work, state courts must follow the lead of federal courts by adopting the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which require forensic testimony to be based on "reliable scientific principles and methods." This rule empowers judges to filter out flawed evidence before it taints the jury.
Unfortunately, vigorous validation happens infrequently in state courts. That's why it is more important than ever for states to adopt evidence-based standards to ensure that only credible and vetted information is given to juries.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the courts were fair to every defendant. It is why we have jury trials in the first place. But the system only works when jurors are presented with trusted information rooted in sound science.
In "Law & Order," the right person is usually found guilty. In real life, that's not always the case.
If we are to have true justice, judges must be empowered to set a high bar to screen out junk science and protect the innocent. If states want to ensure that they get it right, they should adopt the approach set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Van Jones is an attorney, criminal justice advocate and TV personality. David Safavian is an attorney and a conservative activist.