It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
What if it is a new topic/solution/discovery etc. Which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet?
Should we also leave out theoretically possible scientifically based conjecture and speculation?
If Alexander Fleming in 1928 didn't ask what is this mold and then further speculated [Without peer-review] it's possible uses that could have possibly delayed the discovery of Penicillin for years if not decades not to mention all the millions of lives it has helped since then.
Originally posted by Byrd
I sent many letters to the USGS and the NEHRP members over the years, and they don't want to detect earthquakes before they strike, or they would be using my system.
This suggests that you don't have a lot of contact with scientists and you don't know how to bring things to their attention. Letters aren't effective.
Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by Byrd
Forecasting accurately means detection of the larger earthquake cells as they are building up pressure from smaller distant earthquake cells releasing their pressure. The larger earthquake cell is measured in its growing size, shape, and intensity of pressure.
I presented my offer to the contracts officer, the chief seismologist, and another officer of the USGS in 1995. The last time I offered it, I offered it to all of the officers of NEHRP in August and September of 2011 whom are over the USGS, FEMA, NIST and NSF; so I guess I contacted all the right people.
Here is the NEHRP if any of you wish to contact them www.nehrp.gov... and ask them why they aren't pursuing their job requirement by congression law. Here is my site to send them to: www.youtube.com...
By Congressional Law they are REQUIRED to pursue and find out anyones technology that they don't have that easily detects all magnitudes of earthquakes before they strike.
They are getting their funding from Congress. Congress last year repremanded the USGS for blowing billions of dollars on projects that they had already done before that was useless.
Yes, you are right, Congress will increase funding, but not to the SEISMOLOGISTS that are running the show now. These seismologists will loose most all of their funding, because why would you need them to tell you where any large earthquake just struck, when you had a team of scientists out there studying it for days and weeks while it was building up pressure and you had time to evacuate the people if need be.
Do you see why they don't want this technology to come about? They will loose billions of dollars of funding, because Congress will give it to the scientists that will study those earthquakes in detail before they strike.
“An earthquake prediction must specify the expected magnitude range, the geographical area within which it will occur, and the time interval within which it will happen with sufficient precision so that the ultimate success or failure of the prediction can readily be judged. ... Moreover, scientists should also assign a confidence level to each prediction.
Originally posted by playswithmachines
This has been thrown around so many times...
Conventional (i.e. 'established' science) is not the be-all & end all that we think it is.
Some of our most basic concepts are seriously flawed.
Most, if not all, of the 'established' scientists make their money & recieve big fat budgets by continually exploring this or that dead end,writing papers that support each other's theories,
sometimes they hit on something useful, but mostly they are not willing to admit to anything being wrong simply because it would;
1. mean the end of a cushy job, and
2. It would mean having to admit they know very little about what is going on.
NO scientist or professor can really explain a simple fridge magnet, without degenerating into highly esoteric field theory & pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo.
Another frequently abused term is Thermodynamics, namely the second law.
This states categorically that the 'balance of forces' is essential for the equation to work.
Unbalanced forces (asymmetry) are not even considered, so long as the 'big picture' looks good.
The correct scientific explanation for an event is to say that it SEEMS to obey such-and-such law, but we don't know for certain. Ever heard a scientist say that?
I have mathematical proof, logical proof, and actual real physical proof that these hypotheses are just plain wrong
Originally posted by playswithmachines
Most, if not all, of the 'established' scientists make their money & recieve big fat budgets by continually exploring this or that dead end,writing papers that support each other's theories, sometimes they hit on something useful, but mostly they are not willing to admit to anything being wrong simply because it would;
1. mean the end of a cushy job, and
Originally posted by Gab1159
"You want to play the science game, you play by the rules."
So what are the rules exactly? The peer-review concept is rigged, and extremely selective. I mean, it's a fact that it is selective. Since you have totally ignored my reply that I addressed to you in my last thread, let me explain it once more in a very very brief way.
Now show me the rules! You're not the one who's gonna write them, but they must exist right? Where can I see the rules?
Money controls everything. With money comes power. You don't need 10,000 scientists to be "in the cover-up", you need a well oiled up system that can keep the status quo alive. Scientists don't lie, they report to an institution that lies, sometimes. (You seem not to believe in a status quo...) So what is better than making everyone believe that for a technology/piece of science to be true and operable, it has to be peer-reviewed by a certain "credible" and absolute scientific institution? The thing is, yes, with these institutions we've been able to invent internet, satellites, cars, and so on. But we could be way above that by now if there were no middle-man (the peer-review concept).
So what is your rule exactly? I've always thought one of the primary rule of science was to question everything, not take anything as absolute. Was I wrong the whole time? Because the whole thing with the peer-review, is that if something is not peer-reviewed, people see it as "false", or simple inoperable. That goes against questioning everything. What if the institutions really are controlled? You HAVE to ask yourself this question. "The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Einstein So how does a website become "fringe" and "not good enough"? By going against the generally accepted ideas? By not getting peer-reviewed?
"if you have a problem with mainstream sources then stop abusing mainstream science to support your claims! "
But then you are going to link me to this thread I will say it once more but, man, you're on a conspiratorial website! If you don't believe in any conspiracy at all, why are you here? Why aren't you on a science forums with like-minded people? I would expect people would come here with a different mindset...The thing is...there is just one conspiracy...one you have to understand. Once you understand THE conspiracy, you will understand the people you're accusing of stupidity's point.
Now let me tell you the rule here: open mindset. You are on this website to challenge you're view of reality. If you want peer-reviewed articles and nothing else, there are hundreds of scientific forums for that.
I encourage people to challenge everything that is "mainstream", this is the purpose of this website. There is nothing hypocritical in challenging the status quo (read mainstream science). What is hypocritical is to ignore everything that is not peer-reviewed by a "credible" institutions with "credible" scientists. Who makes them "credible"? Is it the fact that they have a phd...that has been earned mostly by repeating what you were told at school? What if the education system was wrong?