It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For those who wish to play the science game...

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
What if it is a new topic/solution/discovery etc. Which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet?

Well, I'd be sure to find out if the person had a degree in the topic and knew what they were talking about. Secondly, you can find a lot of these types of ideas in conference papers.


Should we also leave out theoretically possible scientifically based conjecture and speculation?

Evil question: how do you know which ones are real and plausible? It's easy enough to tell plausible ones about (say) comets if you have a good grounding in astrophysics or math. If you don't, then how do you know that "paper" on Elenin that's presented to the Saturday Evening Reading Club is really plausible scientific conjecture (particularly if it's full of big words like Bose-Einstein condensate) or just adjective-soup nonsense?


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.


Actually, it WAS peer reviewed after experimentation confirmed observations

And production WAS delayed after his discovery because he didn't do further research. It wasn't used until the 1940's, when Howard Florey and Ernst Chain developed the powder form of pure pennicillin.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

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.
Precisely.

If you really have something, I'll stake my pension on being able to get your ideas before the right people. So when and where will the next major quake be?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
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. The smaller distant earthquake cells loose their pressure and, the moment when they loose their pressure, the time is noted, which gives accurate date and time on a particular day in the future in which the larger earthquake cell in the distance will strike. If you had a bath tub, and had it running East and West, and called it the USA, and you put different lines in the bath tub running North and South, and as the water drained from a full bath tub, each and every time the bath tub drained the exact time will be the same for any distant mark from the drain. The same occurs in the USA to a very similar extent, except that once it reaches the west coast the time starts traveling up towards the north and more time is added the further it is to the massive earthquake cell getting ready to strike.

Using piezoseismology its 100% accurate that the size, shape, depth, epicenter, fault line and intensity are easily mapped BEFORE earthquakes of all magnitudes can strike; which is extremely similar to USGS intensity maps that are created after the earthquakes strike, except these maps are mathematical meaning they are more precise than the USGS intensity maps. The timing is only 100% accurate for the larger earthquakes which give their strike times from the smaller earthquake cells releases at great distances.

It is also 100% accurate that it can tell when someones foolish guess that a big earthquake is going to strike somewhere is BS, since the amount of pressure is detectable and measurable at any location on earth.

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...

They have never seen my idea, they don't know how it works.

The idea is well communicated in my 22 YouTube videos.

The background for the idea is well shown in the YouTube videos.

Why should they. 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 can't even detect a magnitude 9 earthquake before it strikes.

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.

Yes, you are right, I don't have a lot of contact with other scientists, because I've secretly worked on this project to make sure it blossomed into prefection and I didn't want anyone screwing it up.

My discoveries are completely different than theirs. Look at their Parkfield, California experiment. It lasted what, over a decade, and they never detected a single earthquake before it struck. With my equipment set up at Parkfield, California during that same time they would have detected hundreds of earthquakes before they struck during that same time period. Not only that, they could have mapped their sizes, intensities, shapes, depths, epicenters and their fault lines before the earthquakes struck.

I do put some data on here, but I don't trust others, so I sold off most of my equipment. I only have part of the equipment that I need. The other equipment was to dangerous to carry around, for the simple fact that people were always asking what is that? What does that do? The equipment that I kept is only capable of getting the visual direction, so that I can study the earthquake faults visually as their radiation penetrates through any home or business walls; and I can study the small pressures, but not the pressures around the epicenters.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

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.


So, how (geologically) are you defining the boundaries of an earthquake cell?


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.


No, you did not contact 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...


"Investigate every prediction method offered to them" is not part of their job description.

Secondly, messages with a YouTube link are often labeled "spam" by government firewalls and trashed. If it did get through, they trashed the email the moment they encountered a "watch this video" statement.

Third -- watching videos at work in a government office is a VERY BAD idea. I know, because I worked for a city government in the past. I know people who were fired for watching videos. They won't watch 22 videos. They won't even watch one.


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.


Which law would this be? I don't see it in the USGS mission statement.


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.


I'm a tad skeptical about that, since their total budget for 2010 was just 1.1 billion dollars As far as I can tell, that was the largest budget they ever had -- one billion dollars.


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.


Seismologists are scientists (geophysicists) who study earthquakes and volcanoes and issue earthquake and volcano and tsunami warnings if they think there's a danger. They're trying to get funding for an early earthquake warning system.


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.

Remember, their total budget is only 1.1 billion dollars. They can't possibly lose billions of dollars.

Finally, here's a quote from a symposium on earthquakes:

“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.


You haven't told us about your prediction... what time frame is your prediction for? What's the magnitude range? Can it detect small ones? Can it predict the area affected? How and where did you run your tests? Have you created a testable mathematical model like the ones discussed in this abstract?

And can't you piggyback on the USGS data or the SCEC data and plug in your predictions? They've got lots of maps and data free to use.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
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.
Instead they keep pushing their hopelessly outdated models based on 18th century observations (and a great deal of assumtions).
I have pointed this out many times, but as yet i still haven't had a satisfactory answer.
A classical example being the use of the 'work' equation to prove magnets can not be a source of energy, directly or indirectly.
The Work equation states that since it is not moving, no work is being done, so basically the magnet clings to the fridge (defying gravity) out of love & affection for all things ferrous.
NO scientist or professor can really explain a simple fridge magnet, without degenerating into highly esoteric field theory & pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo.
You see it works both ways.
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.
I have frequently remarked on the speed of gravity, the model of charge as an apart dimension, and a number of other seemingly 'impossible' things. I don't care what my 'peers' think, if they are all educated to accept the 'standard model' without admitting it is flawed, then i can't help them any more.
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? Not often.
I have mathematical proof, logical proof, and actual real physical proof that these hypotheses are just plain wrong

edit on 18-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


True, but then again, translating a technical manual into English is not easy, there are going to be mistakes.
Just browse through the instructions for your Microwave or t.v.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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.


And, sadly, misstatements about science and scientists are common all over the internet.


Some of our most basic concepts are seriously flawed.

Particularly among non-scientists.


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,


Average salary for a full time professor is about half of the amount earned by a union worker at an automobile plant (several sources say $75/hour... but professors earn less than that and they had to pay for a lot more student loans.) As for the rest, that may have been told to you by someone from another site who never met or talked to (or worked as) a scientist.


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.


I think you would change your mind if you talked to a few of us.


NO scientist or professor can really explain a simple fridge magnet, without degenerating into highly esoteric field theory & pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo.


I was going to suggest you look at this: physics.info... -- but, sadly, it's physics and mathematics 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.

I think it's "The Second Law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."


Unbalanced forces (asymmetry) are not even considered, so long as the 'big picture' looks good.

Actually, they are. Note the above said "in a closed system." There are very few closed systems -- most are dynamic systems, and when you're making models, you have to treat them as dynamic systems.


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?


Yes. Everyone on this board seems to rant about how much scientists don't know and how often they'll call something a "hypothesis."

And hypothesis means: "For all the cases we've ever seen and all modeled and under all possible circumstances that we've investigated it SEEMS to obey this law but there might be something that we've never considered which would change that."


I have mathematical proof, logical proof, and actual real physical proof that these hypotheses are just plain wrong

It'd be interesting to see you tackle the mathematics of Maxwell's equations or answer Loschmidt's paradox (particularly that one, since some scientists are fond of creating rather troublesome paradox questions that (so far) nobody's been able to answer mathematically.)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

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
If only.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you realise how many of us have or are considering giving it up. It really doesn't pay. Equally talented, less qualified people in other professions can expect to paid more than scientists - at least here in the UK ( I believe it is similar in the US).



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

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?


You are quite right there my friend. Good Post



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join