here come the nothing! "never ending story" snicker

a reply to: Answer

You are wound a little too tight with your need to impress yourself and everyone else. My reply to you was flippit and an obvious attempt at humor.

But thank you for giving another example as to how many people here are virtually "devoid" of humor.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

They found something that is to big to exist.
Gotta love the sound of settled science being punched in the face.

That is quite hyperbolic of you.

Aside from you misrepresenting the article (you should have just posted the actual title of the article because your interpretation missed its mark by a wide margin)

The space doesn't fit current models. That is "model" with an "s" indicating there is more than one which should indicate they never claimed it was settled.

A more fitting title would have bee "This is why Science is so Awsome".

Here is why, they discovered something they didn't think was possible and instead of dogmatically denying it they have celebrated it. Accepted it and are currently asking new questions trying to understand it.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer

The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

You're a scientist too? Pleasure to meet you. What is your field of study? What was the focus of your doctoral dissertation?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Answer

You are wound a little too tight with your need to impress yourself and everyone else. My reply to you was flippit and an obvious attempt at humor.

But thank you for giving another example as to how many people here are virtually "devoid" of humor.

I responded to you with a quote from Cool Hand Luke and you think I'm wound too tight and need to impress people?

Frankly, I agree that most people here lack a sense of humor so I tend to go with "yes, he's actually asking that as a serious question" when I'm on the fence. I've been misinterpreted many times on this site when I was trying to be sarcastic.

You made an attempt at humor and now you're being dickish to me for no good reason. Decide which side of the "sense of humor" fence you're on.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer

The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

You're a scientist too? Pleasure to meet you. What is your field of study? What was the focus of your doctoral dissertation?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the poster was (myself)ing the "people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions" part, not the scientist part.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer

The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.

The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.

Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.

The problem is that it can be very, very difficult to get a grant to produce said research or gain peer review if your hypothesis and research go too far against the orthodox views of settled science.

As a scientist myself let me tell you that getting grant funding is always hard. If you want to go against "orthodox views of settled science" then you had better be prepared to fully justify your proposal with supporting evidence. Mainstream research can result in overturning previously held theories, but you don't get there by jumping to conclusions that "orthodox views are wrong." You get there by carefully and systematically investigating apparent discrepancies. In fact, gaps in our understanding are always ripe areas for grant proposals.

a reply to: Answer

Okay fair enough. I run into this quite often and I swear the next million-dollar invention on the Internet will go to the guy that can make a decent sarcasm emote.

Oh and dick-ish seems a little juvenile I prefer the term asshole.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer

The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.

The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.

Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.

The problem is that it can be very, very difficult to get a grant to produce said research or gain peer review if your hypothesis and research go too far against the orthodox views of settled science.

As a scientist myself let me tell you that getting grant funding is always hard. If you want to go against "orthodox views of settled science" then you had better be prepared to fully justify your proposal with supporting evidence. Mainstream research can result in overturning previously held theories, but you don't get there by jumping to conclusions that "orthodox views are wrong." You get there by carefully and systematically investigating apparent discrepancies. In fact, gaps in our understanding are always ripe areas for grant proposals.

No I understand that, I'm talking about all the times I see an abstract about something where they suddenly throw in a sentence starting with "Of course, climate change ..." and then proceed to somehow link the idea to whatever they are studying when they really don't have to because the climate or its change really aren't all that relevant to the topic. It just seems a blatant grab for funding by appealing to a prominent pop-science focus at the moment.

It just irritates me is all because it seems a sign of how much money is tied up in climate study. So much that even completely tangential stuff seems to have an easier time getting funding through that avenue.

originally posted by: ketsuko

No I understand that, I'm talking about all the times I see an abstract about something where they suddenly throw in a sentence starting with "Of course, climate change ..." and then proceed to somehow link the idea to whatever they are studying when they really don't have to because the climate or its change really aren't all that relevant to the topic. It just seems a blatant grab for funding by appealing to a prominent pop-science focus at the moment.

It just irritates me is all because it seems a sign of how much money is tied up in climate study. So much that even completely tangential stuff seems to have an easier time getting funding through that avenue.

Please provide some examples of this...

It used to be unwritten rule on ATS to support your posts, not to talk from thin air... that is what made this site special and allowed it to stay this long in time online forums decline.

Please prove me this is not another 'climate change' bashing...

a reply to: ketsuko


The article basically says that with this new evidence or discovery, call it what you will, just took all the current "models" and made them wrong. So why exactly is it such a big stretch to think all the global warming models are wrong?
This just proves that a theory needs proven correct or proven wrong.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: ketsuko


The article basically says that with this new evidence or discovery, call it what you will, just took all the current "models" and made them wrong. So why exactly is it such a big stretch to think all the global warming models are wrong?
This just proves that a theory needs proven correct or proven wrong.

A discovery that proves a model wrong does not prove a scientific theory wrong.

Can you name the scientific theory that this discovery has falsified?

In correlation

Climate models can be proven wrong, but that does not falsify the "Global Warming Theory" or Climate Change Theory".



The newly discovered information will be accounted for quantified and recalculated into the models and those models will be updated and serve as evidence towards theories or hypotheses.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

No, it's not.

And it doesn't.

Doesn't change the fact either that John Snow discovered that cholera spread through contaminated water and was completely dismissed despite his evidence, including statistics and a Voronoi diagram of cases, showing the cluster of cases around a public water pump. He did get local official to remove the pump handle and the epidemic subsided.

Snow wasn't vindicated until germ theory later proved he was correct in his challenge of the prevailing settled science of the day -- miasma theory -- which held it was bad air that spread disease and contagion.

Snow's study can be called the founding event in the science of epidemiology. But he was originally rejected in his challenge. Not everyone who challenges things that science today knows to be true is some religious nut. Thirty years from now, the science from today will be outdated in many places and others will still be what we know to be true.

Honestly, if you walk down to the seashore with a 32 oz cup and dip some water out, what you have in the cup is what we know. What you see in the ocean? That's what's left to be discovered, and some of what's in the cup will be drastically changed in our understanding by what's our there.

Ah, the old "mainstream scientists have been proven wrong, and that means any crank/alternative idea out there is prefectly valid and should be respected" tune. And the "science authorities rejected scientific pioneers in the past, and that means that all those rejected by today's scientific authorities are true scientific pioneers".

So much bad logic, it hurts.

@ketsuko - the scientific community has come a long way from that dogmatic and stubborn attitude they had in previous centuries. Science will continue to find corrections and improvements, but they have to come on the wings of observable (or measurable) evidence and backed up by solid maths and theory. Practically everything I have seen of the alternative "science" is only fit for enterntainment.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Possibly some kind of Dyson sphere/Stellar engine only on a larger scale?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Answer

Okay fair enough. I run into this quite often and I swear the next million-dollar invention on the Internet will go to the guy that can make a decent sarcasm emote.

Oh and dick-ish seems a little juvenile I prefer the term asshole.

I've learned how to tap dance on the thin red line of the T&C without incurring the wrath of the mods...

Outright calling you an asshole goes a little too far, even if it's deserved.

a reply to: Answer

I do apologize sincerely now. You have a very good sense of humor!!!!!

Thread disruption due to some feeling more relevant...

This is a very interesting OP thanks for sharing.

To quote Dara O'Briain:

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, or else it would stop"

So I don't really get what the OP means by "settled science". It could be said that the entire purpose of science and the scientific method is to try to poke holes in what we humans think we already know about nature and the universe.

Subjects such as the void in the OP's articles are extremely exciting to all scientists -- including "mainstream" scientists. These kinds of mysteries that seem to go against what they thought they knew is what they live for, and maybe why they became scientists in the first place.

a reply to: Answer

If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.

This is simply NOT true.

One example was a Geologist who had provided a whole lifetime of proof for his theory the whole thing was turned into an episode on NG. He was ignored because what he PROVED was outside of mainstream accepted science in his field.

THUS he was booted from his university position and ostracised until death! Years down the line his PROOF was dug up and looked at (as is) by some thinking scientist and was declared a BREAKTHROUGH! CHANGING what mainstream science accepts in that area of Geology.


IT HAPPENS AGAIN AND AGAIN!!! if you read tons and tons of books like some do you would see the hilarity of the science worship and how really they hold us back in their methods!

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer

The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

You're a scientist too? Pleasure to meet you. What is your field of study? What was the focus of your doctoral dissertation?

You need to read more carefully before responding:

I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)

But it just so happens that I do have an AA degree in science. So yes I am a scientist. You do not have to be a Dr. to be a scientist!