here come the nothing! "never ending story" snicker

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

Perhaps you need to reword your post so that it's not a run-on sentence. Great job getting your AA, let me know when you start working on your dissertation. I'm anxious to hear the results of your research.

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)

Those people are notorious for making assumptions of existence then building evidence to support their assumptions then using that assumption to disprove current theories. This includes your pet EU theory.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
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!

Uh... Proof?

originally posted by: Char-Lee
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!

My knowledgeable scientific friend, do you know what second A stands for in AA? (a as arts, not science )

Sorry to poke fun, but no, AA does not make you scientist, you need AS to get step closer...

All jokes aside, reading scientific paper can make you researcher, as long as you apply simple science principle and accept that yes, we don't know all, but mainly we recognize we don't know it and don't label it something we don't have evidence for.

Now back to complains why so many thing get linked to global warming, its simply because whole field of things actually ARE linked and ARE accelerating global warming effect. Scientist are trying to warn everyone, but if you for example look at those interpreting laws in USA, all of them will give you some funky reason they don't trust science, from snowball they got outside in capitol to some old research... (and in back all their campaigns are supported by some brothers, help me remember name... something with K... )

Real scientist will never link something that has no evidence for. It would not stand peer review.

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

I can't help but notice you left out which "science" that would be...

Considering that an AA is typically for the humanities and an AS is for scientific fields, I'm curious which particular field you're in.

Further, not to pick on you but... I don't think your 2-year Associates degree gives you the right to claim you're a scientist.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

Perhaps you need to reword your post so that it's not a run-on sentence. Great job getting your AA, let me know when you start working on your dissertation. I'm anxious to hear the results of your research.

Small minds....

Did anyone ever tell you brains are not handed out in the Universities of the world? Some of the smartest people on our planet have no degrees.

As far as methods go there should never be only one method for anything or we will never be able to improve and run on and on and on...

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Small minds....

Did anyone ever tell you brains are not handed out in the Universities of the world? Some of the smartest people on our planet have no degrees.

Let me bite: 'Really, who??'

originally posted by: Char-Lee
As far as methods go there should never be only one method for anything or we will never be able to improve and run on and on and on...

You clearly have no idea how science works...

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

I can't help but notice you left out which "science" that would be...

Considering that an AA is typically for the humanities and an AS is for scientific fields, I'm curious which particular field you're in.

Further, not to pick on you but... I don't think your 2-year Associates degree gives you the right to claim you're a scientist.

Clearly I meant AS I am not sure WHY this should matter to you as it has nothing at all to do with this thread and my response was not to you.

However since you ask my area of study was earth sciences aiming for Geology, because of a change in my life I had to leave school and was short three classes so accepted Social and Behavioral Science (AS) which is fine as I never intended to work in any of those fields in the first place.

Learning is a lifelong thing and if you study for a paper that says you accomplished something and not for the learning itself it is all pointless. Anyone who studies the subject whether in school or out has the right to call themselves scientist imo.
Pride is stupid.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Char-Lee
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!

Uh... Proof?

So is any proof of this going to be forth coming?

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

I can't help but notice you left out which "science" that would be...

Considering that an AA is typically for the humanities and an AS is for scientific fields, I'm curious which particular field you're in.

Further, not to pick on you but... I don't think your 2-year Associates degree gives you the right to claim you're a scientist.

Clearly I meant AS I am not sure WHY this should matter to you as it has nothing at all to do with this thread and my response was not to you.

However since you ask my area of study was earth sciences aiming for Geology, because of a change in my life I had to leave school and was short three classes so accepted Social and Behavioral Science (AS) which is fine as I never intended to work in any of those fields in the first place.

Learning is a lifelong thing and if you study for a paper that says you accomplished something and not for the learning itself it is all pointless. Anyone who studies the subject whether in school or out has the right to call themselves scientist imo.
Pride is stupid.

So you forgot which degree you have? AS vs AA is not that hard to remember.

It matters because you said you are a scientist. Generally, someone who even hints at being a subject matter expert should explain their qualifications.

Now that you've been called out, you're belittling the educational system and pretending that degrees don't matter. Sad, really.

Pride may be stupid but walking around with an obvious chip on your shoulder is much worse.

a reply to: Answer

to state the fooking obvious :

one does not need a " degree " to be a scientist

refuting the idiocy of :

Further, not to pick on you but... I don't think your 2-year Associates degree gives you the right to claim you're a scientist.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

That is true, but if you want to claim being a scientist, then you better follow the scientific method to reach your conclusions. If you don't do that, then you aren't a scientist regardless of WHAT degrees a university has deemed to give you.

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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!

Perhaps you need to reword your post so that it's not a run-on sentence. Great job getting your AA, let me know when you start working on your dissertation. I'm anxious to hear the results of your research.

Small minds....

Excuse me?

Did anyone ever tell you brains are not handed out in the Universities of the world?

No they aren't. But they generally are needed if you are to earn a PhD in a scientific field of study.

Some of the smartest people on our planet have no degrees.

And some of the smartest people on our planet have obtained a PhD or other terminal degree. You said you were a scientist, that carries with it a certain connotation and implies you are professionally employed or independently funded to conduct scientific research. I am a scientist, it's my official job title. To be clear, I'm not saying a job title alone makes you a scientist, but when you say you're a scientist it implies that you use the scientific method to make your living. Where I work the vast majority of our scientists have PhDs. Two of our scientists do not, but they do publish peer reviewed research. There are exceptions to just about any rule, but in my field it's quite a rare exception that someone overseeing research neither has, nor is pursuing, a PhD.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Answer

to state the fooking obvious :

one does not need a " degree " to be a scientist

refuting the idiocy of :

Further, not to pick on you but... I don't think your 2-year Associates degree gives you the right to claim you're a scientist.

I won't bother refuting your idiocy as Char-Lee has already validated the point I was making with my statement.

Additionally, you can read ngchunter's response as to why I said what I said, specifically: "You said you were a scientist, that carries with it a certain connotation and implies you are professionally employed or independently funded to conduct scientific research."

We all know what is meant when a person claims to be a "scientist." Just because someone has an associates in social and behavioral science, it does not make them a scientist and it certainly doesn't add any additional qualification for them to opine on matters of the universe.

ATTENTION:

Please return to the topic, which is not each other. Thanks.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Mod and Member

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:

“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”

It is pretty simple really, there is a model developed that is the accepted one, if any of us regular people feel the evidence points to it being wrong we get laughed at because we are not the great all knowing scientists!

Then over and over again the scientists accepted model is blown away because something doesn't fit...again, and it is not anything to even note it is simply because we are all stupid and they are all so perfect in so many eyes!

Although the Big Bang theory allows for areas that are cooler and hotter, the size of the void does not fit with predicted models. Simply put, it is too big to exist.

Here's the difference: evidence.

The "regular people" (creationists) you're referring to are unable to present actual evidence that proves anything wrong. You have nothing but opinion, a book, and your own misunderstandings as "proof" that scientists have it all wrong.

When you can produce real evidence that the established theories are wrong, someone in the scientific world might actually pay attention.

Aside from all that, scientific theories are designed to allow new discoveries like this one so the information can be changed as new evidence presents itself. Scientists don't pretend to have all the answers, religions do that.

New discoveries VERY RARELY invalidate existing theories and even if they did, it certainly wouldn't somehow open the door for "well obviously if we don't know why this happened, that means god did it."

Well, would you please chalk up for us armchair skeptics of the Scientific Method being wrong about cometary bodies?
That has been an incredible miss still ricocheting around the learned halls.

Oh look, the universe sports a huge pothole!

I'm having a whole lot of trouble understanding where all the stupid mudslinging came from. Do the naysayers actually expect the universe to be utterly uniform & everything within to be evenly distributed? Does a variance in composition in the universe sound Greek or something? Seriously? And you're knocking scientists?

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Back to topic, let's talk about current Universe model and trouble with it we already have. It is not perfect, but so far its most accurate and it will most likely change few times more during our life time, thanks to better instruments, computers and understanding of the way cosmos works and possibly new discoveries.

What I mean, we already have a star that does not fit current model. Given star, named Methuselah by current model is older then universe?!

I remember we talked about this, here is link for some sources about this little problem...

www.space.com...

Back to OPs post and even topic title, yes, as we learn and widen our knowledge, given model is changing and even this new discovery will rise new questions. This is not something scientist try to avoid, but its actually something they look for. Current model is not a theory, it has to be proven to work, including this star that appears older then universe and even empty part of space (or lower density part of space) and in future we will have more complete understanding of how it all happened.

That is beauty of science...