More complete NONSENSE from Never A Straight Answer.
New simulations suggest
to better explain a recent puzzling
trying to figure out what's going on
Conventional planetary formation theory
a mixing model
working on the assumption
because it's easier
to work on this assumption
scientists had previously toyed with the idea
Scientists have to rely on calculations
a computer program to simulate
conditions are thought to be
Researchers believe that
scientists were baffled
searched for a suitable explanation
Using conventional models
, the astronomers calculated
presented a huge problem for traditional assumptions
core is probably
heavy elements likely
explain the ultra-high density
Certain processes may
Scientists don't know
many other questions remain
that there will be
Those who are students, what kind of grade do you think you would get on a paper filled with this kind of vagueness?
Those who have jobs, if you wrote a report like this, filled with "assumptions" and "might" and "may have" , do you think you would get fired
Unless you work at an ad agency. Then you would probably get promoted. These are called "weasel words" in the ad business. The kind of words that
make it sound like you are saying something, yet you are really saying NOTHING.
A politician's speeches are like this too. Hot air, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING. They call it "plausible deniability".
I wish I could get grants of hundreds of thousands, paying me to play with giant billion dollar toys for years and years, yet producing NO RESULTS.
They've been doing this for DECADES, yet EVERY TIME they point their telescopes in a new direction, "scientists are baffled". Computer models do
not prove anything.
Only meteorologists can FAIL this much and still get paid for it.
This is a joke. BILLIONS of your tax dollars at work.