POVERTY IS RISING

[corydoras]

So i have to base my knowledge of 99% of everything on hearsay or the opinion of the moment ,not really scientific is it? Nor fact.

Trouble is even on the bbc "facts" can be wrong ,school teachers "facts" almost certainly are if my school life was and is anything to go by ,and scientists being a close knit bunch rarely question others findings because research is expensive ,biased and typically not broad spectrum enough to accidentally bump into inconsistencies in others work unless your researching the exact same thing at the time and as we know challenging a presumed fact can have the scientific community pounce even if you ARE right .

We know little about the earth and we know nothing outside of mars and even that isnt open to challenge as the data is generally from one source with its own agenda.

Whilst your thoughts on common sence is correct logic plays a good part in some thoughts but unless you can experience everything out there its totally based on biased opinions of others so really of no use to anyone

 

My best advice is never believe anything anyone says and never ever base your trust in anyone else and never ever ever base your life on anyone including yourself (wink)

 

Theres far to many misconceptions out there ,many darn right harmful ,most just anoying but many are used to extract something from people (generally money) so the best thing would be to keep scientific presumptions out of the limelight until proven 100% ( i know you cannot stomach that criteria but 99% true is still untrue) and for gods sake have laws where untruth is punishable by huge fines and persecution and strangulation of the instigators children in front of the instigator

 

Theres far to may MIGHT ,COULD ,PERHAPS ,i want WILL ,CERTAINLY WILL and DEFINATELY WILL used along with the proof before something is let out of the bag

 

You seem an intelligent chap but why on earth are you treating scientists like gods and believing without proof (like all god lovers) anything they say ? Especially when they have to say something to keep their jobs !

There is so much wrong with that that I really don't know where to start to reply to it. I certainly don't have the time to do it today, but the bit I have higlighted in bold shows me that you have no real understanding how science in general and the peer review process works. Proving someone else wrong is how Nobel Prizes are won.

 

Nothing can be proven to be 100% correct.

[chesters1]

Trouble is i know how research works ,who really does it ,how its biased to reflect who pays for it ,mainly as i say it generates funds so you really really dont want to **** off the funder or they never return ,and i know a fair few. Academics who base their whole career on subordinates who do the work for damn all and appear nowhere at all on the finished paper .

You maynot believe me i am biased but i do have experience so can base my beliefs on reality not opinion but when you base your assumptions on so called biased scientists who base their assumptions the work done by terribly paid, generally disgruntled poorly trained researchers you had better not trust your life the technician gave a crap to do it all correctly

Ps you can trust my work poorly paid and disgruntled i still was honourable enough to do it correctly unfortunately all the way to the top they were not so honourable so think twice!

Have a little gander then think about how many lies you maybe risking your life on which is excepted as true today

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

Edited May 15, 2014 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Got any tape?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15016-humble-sticky-tape-emits-powerful-xrays.html

Yup I had heard about that one, but I think it would be easier to use a CRT . Do you think the tape would work if it were not done in a vaccuum chamber Steve?

[corydoras]

Trouble is i know how research works ,who really does it ,how its biased to reflect who pays for it ,mainly as i say it generates funds so you really really dont want to **** off the funder or they never return ,and i know a fair few. Academics who base their whole career on subordinates who do the work for damn all and appear nowhere at all on the finished paper .

You maynot believe me i am biased but i do have experience so can base my beliefs on reality not opinion

Most of it is paid for by the tax-payer.

Anyone can publish a paper. Many amateur astronomers have published papers, or are credited as collaborators.

 

Many papers are published that piddle off at least some of those who fund the research.

http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

[chesters1]

Most of it is paid for by the tax-payer.

Anyone can publish a paper. Many amateur astronomers have published papers, or are credited as collaborators.

 

Many papers are published that piddle off at least some of those who fund the research.

http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

Most of it is paid by industry as its cheaper than having labs and poorly paid techs of their own ,i did research for many electronic groups ,they funded and had bullet points to what was expected in the results ,if the criteria was not accomplished it disappeared from the results ,i have no doubt it cropped up as a disclaimer or an "adverse side effect" used as get out clauses on many conditions of use we see ,so long as its mentioned in small print it appears to be fine !

Ofcourse i only type my experiences on this occasion i wont give links on google to hearsay

Been involved in perhaps 20 "papers" but strangely only ever got a mention on final year student ones never academics.

The paid for work is ofcourse purely the production of the owner of the research labs and their techs ,they will never (the. Techs) get mentioned except ofcourse to blame if the research is found to be flawed .

 

Probably the results in the link were instigated by alternate view researchers or more likely leaked by researchers seeing their work mishandled ,if easily poo pooed research was about no mention of it ever being done would be the case ,its very easy to shred easily discredited work just as it is to threaten those that are paid to do it or ofcourse dodgy stats to discredit dodgy stats so more money can be made from those that believe in facts based on dodgy stats?

Edited May 15, 2014 by chesters1

[Steve Walker]

I guess not, otherwise why have one? Attenuation of x rays of that energy is only about 18% in 1m of air, so it's not a detection issue.