The US has had Anti-Grav for 40+ yrs.

Originally posted by NileQueen
Are you crazy?! They would all have to replicate what they were seeing, and it would have to be submitted for peer review to some heavyweight journal or other. A year or so later it might be returned to the authors for revision, and have to suffer a rewrite..... :D
Click to expand...

Ah, you really understand. Now explain to the rest that the same standards Scientists demand of themselves is applied to everyone else. That's why a paper submitted through a peer reviewed journal carries more weight than anything else. The authors deserve it.
 
Originally posted by thed
Ah, you really understand. Now explain to the rest that the same standards Scientists demand of themselves is applied to everyone else. That's why a paper submitted through a peer reviewed journal carries more weight than anything else. The authors deserve it.
Click to expand...
==================================================

thed, that is an explaination of why research done by non-scientists
and "UFOlogists" is not accepted by the scientific community. It does
not explain why research, and resulting papers, is not done BY the
scientific community. The research need not "solve" the UFO
phenomenon, just serious, peer reviewed studies as done on
other subjects in science. Is the model of the dodecahedron shaped
universe the correct one or the open, flat universe with ever increasing expansion correct? Much work has gone into each model,
nothing is "solved," but our understanding of the universe has increased. Have you read some of the research papers published
on ball lightning? Another very controversial topic, but papers were
published with much less information known about the phenomenon than about the UFO phenomena in general. The
papers on ball lightning are certainly not in agreement on its
formation or the method by which it stays together. But they were
published. I can just imagine the controversy surrounding different
hyphothesis on the UFO phenomena, if papers were published. Is
this what mainstream science is wary of? ;)
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
==================================================

thed, that is an explaination of why research done by non-scientists
and "UFOlogists" is not accepted by the scientific community.
Click to expand...

I've had the privilege of talking to a few "non-scientists" who have had papers published in peer reviewed journals. What of it. The differrence is in approach.

It does not explain why research, and resulting papers, is not done BY the scientific community.
Click to expand...

It does but you can't see why.

The research need not "solve" the UFO
phenomenon, just serious, peer reviewed studies as done on
other subjects in science.
Click to expand...

And if that study says UFO's are the result of human infallibility, would you accept it? Seems to me that the overwhelming majority majority of science already says this.

Is the model of the dodecahedron shaped
universe the correct one or the open, flat universe with ever increasing expansion correct?
Click to expand...

As we are talking chalk and cheese here I'll say yes to both. One's to do with topology, the other geometry. Very different things.

As I've said, the courts not out on either case as we are still learning a lot about this. Are you willing to accept that a preconceived notion is wrong when the data's against you? Most are not.

Much work has gone into each model,
Click to expand...

AbAbout a hundred papers a month for the former, only one paper on the dododecaheral model for the Universes Topology. Guess what my opinion is on the latter.

nothing is "solved," but our understanding of the universe has increased.
Click to expand...

May be, may be not. But how would a paper on some Hick's blurry phphoto of a light increase our understanding of anything.

Have you read some of the research papers published
on ball lightning? Another very controversial topic, but papers were
published with much less information known about the phenomenon than about the UFO phenomena in general. The
papers on ball lightning are certainly not in agreement on its
formation or the method by which it stays together. But they were
published. I can just imagine the controversy surrounding different
hyphothesis on the UFO phenomena, if papers were published. Is
this what mainstream science is wary of? ;)
Click to expand...

Sciemce is not wary of anything, given the evidence. Yes it's had it's moments, meteors not withstanding, but when the evidence outweighs accepted thought, the evidence wins. Typically this never happens in a psuedo-scientific endeavour,
 
quotes by thed:

The problem is that the data does not support any one model over the other at present. I believe the HST has been used to narrow done a few models though. There is no true model to favour.

To me this is the difference between science/skepticism and psuedo-science. The skeptic/scientist lacking data will take all reasonable models equally. Once some data is found to favour one model competing models are dropped. The psuedo-scientist says, "my model is right I'm not listening to the data". There are cientists with Ph.D's working in academia who are guilty of this as well. I am not saying all academics are blameless.
______________________
And if that study says UFO's are the result of human infallibility, would you accept it? Seems to me that the overwhelming majority majority of science already says this.
============================================
answer:
There are several cases involving multipal witness testimony with
supporting radar evidence and military action taken. What data has
science produced to indicate they were the result of human infallibility? How is science, lacking data, taking all reasonable models equally? There are cases involving trace effects on plants
and soil, performed by scientific labratories. What data does the
"overwhelming majority of science" have to indicate that was the
result of human infallibility? Mainstream science says "my model is
right I'm not listening to the data".
===============================================

quote by thed:

May be, may be not. But how would a paper on some Hick's blurry phphoto of a light increase our understanding of anything.
============================================
my response:
Who, besides you, advocated writing a research paper on a blurry
photo of a light? That doesn't sound like an intelligent thing to
propose to me. Are all photos taken by "Hicks"? An unwarranted
and derogatory statement.
=============================================

quote by thed:

Sciemce is not wary of anything, given the evidence. Yes it's had it's moments, meteors not withstanding, but when the evidence outweighs accepted thought, the evidence wins. Typically this never happens in a psuedo-scientific endeavour,
==========================================
my response:
That may be your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that
mainstream science is quivering in its boots at the possible
outcome of such study.
 
2

Mainstream science says "my model is right I'm not listening to the data".

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!) (drasin)

My personal opinion is that mainstream science is quivering in its boots at the possible outcome of such study.

say it again brother. the bastards have backed themselves into a corner and there is no way out. hence the bullshit
 
I don't think you can really do much with anti-grav until gravity waves are detected. At that point you have somewhere to start at least. I suppose people have probably tried to think past it but it's difficult when you don't really even understand for sure how the force is propagated. The whole "divot in space-time" think sure seems on it, but without a unified theory of what exactly space-time is, it's almost impossible to manipulate gravity.
 
imagine all the new law suits from people suing companys for all the injurys from hover boards and such things that would be most likely off the production lines first
ask any public service worker about the responsibility level of the genral public, as a group, that they have to deal with on a day to day bassis
most people cant even learn how to drive a car properly
i.e handle a car in a slide or any other type of scenario that
the training is supposed to give aspects of safer outcomes with greater skills
most accidents happen while the car is travelling in a manner
that most people have no ability or training to control or deal with
and NO DESIRE to learn better skills and abilities to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top