Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Where did Venus come from?
Options
Comments
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »That's not a theory.
It's not even a hypothesis.
Yes the planets were formed in roughly similar processes at similar times.
Yes the gravitational effects of the larger planets had an effect.
In these enlightened days of course, no one believes the planet Magrathea exists.
The likes a Jupiter could create all the conditions that are currently believed to be required to form a planet.0 -
Thanks.
The way I see it, is that the problem is actually the authority, with which the scientific community appear to have, and because of that, the power to influence.
I'm sure you know in economics it's very different, different because everyone can see it so clearly and understand how much of an inexact science it is; with the government a huge issue is transparency.
With the scientific community, they're protected by themselves and nobody outside the field, could dare to attack them. They would be ridiculed as they walked down the street. At the same time, this community of people are key figures of authority on certain issues which politicians, business etc. rely on.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there is a governing body, but if there was, the situation would be even worse. There comes a time when ultimately a select few have all the power and there the ones with the money, and they can do what they want with it, including paying off who they want with it.....everyman has his price so they say whether your talking about money or something else.
Am I right in saying this? Obviously it's great to know that your right....but leaving that aside and particularly on the authority of science is where I would like feedback.
Is the scientific community open to corruption the way it's setup or have I missed something fundamental?0 -
Am I right in saying this? Obviously it's great to know that your right....but leaving that aside and particularly on the authority of science is where I would like feedback.
Is the scientific community open to corruption the way it's setup or have I missed something fundamental?
You can read the research papers, look at the data, do the mathematics, and in some cases make your own observations to verify what the scientific consensus is telling you. I don't know what more you could ask for really.0 -
Just for the record then....I know it's off topic, but for those that are interested and probably are if following this thread, check out google for corruption in science and you will find aplenty regarding the issue.
Also, I'm sure plenty of research you look over is all valid if peer reviewed etc. etc.
IMO, it's not about what's out there already necessarily and which there has been a lot of focus on up to now....it's what hasn't been looked at which could be quite obvious if you think about it hard enough. The corruption element is quite simple to imagine when politicians rely on their opinions and the business community (including everywhere you go to spend money, which includes grocery shopping....and genetically modified foods). Maybe it's scientists that have more control than any single entity. This is not conspiracy when you take a scientific approach using logic and attained knowledge....although there are a lot of strange secret societies out there such as the freemasons, whom are highly secretive. Many American presidents have been part of these societies. It's not arguable regarding 9/11 once the evidence is taken into account that those planes took the whole buildings down and in such a controlled fashion....just once more reason to look at what's happening a little more closer.....bush senior announced the concept of a "new word order" to the public a long time ago.
Knowledge is power, you don't just give it all away. I understand that some things need to be withheld from people to avoid chaos. Those guys are looking for energy resources predominantly in NASA....because that money for space exploration comes from commercial entities. If they were not looking for it as first priority, then there idiots. Bankers aren't idiots. America has a lot to lose if it doesn't find energy resources.
The technology has been available for the last 30yrs to garner solar energy from the moons surface and that's been feasible for a long time technically or at least would be if the money was pointed there. Sure, we put a man on the moon how long ago? It easy to understand why this will never be done though.
Noam Chomsky when asked about conspiracy theorists said "the only difference between the followers and leaders of these theorists, or theories, is that the general "sheep" type people believe what they read in the newspapers and what they watch on tv".....not in those words but that was the general gist.
Leaving aside mythology you have to at least think about the possibility of planets being created by a gas giant. Mythology could be your source of inspiration but it's a serious scientific question which is well worth exploring....and in fact Einstein felt the same way about it.0 -
To get somewhat back on topic though....the moon is moving away and the earth as a consequence is slowing down to the point the days will be longer and the nights longer....what will happen when it stops? How many people know this is affecting climate?
How are solutions to climate change different in concept to business plans? How much has the "climate change issue" confused the general population to the point that they're just gonna let the scientists sort it out? Who is funding the scientists?
There is no way to predict how long the earth is going to last and those that do are misleading those that believe.
You need to know who is funding what, who are the people involved in those organizations, what ties do they have? before considering adding in research or findings to your collective knowledge....perhaps there even part of "secret societies". If they are part of a society you can throw it in the bin to a certain extent as far as I'm concerned. They say people believe in what is written down more so than word, that includes everyone, but it's difficult to do and so people don't bother and it makes it even easier. Confuse people enough and they will just watch "come dine with me" and "coronation street" on TV.
Microsoft were releasing research documents with reported findings a long time ago on their web server IIS vs Apache (and possibly nginx - can't remember). The question is not what they released though because that could be scrutinized....the question is what did they leave out.0 -
Advertisement
-
From wikipedia: Not sourced because it's fairly obvious anyway.
Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies; often known as research councils). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.[citation needed]
According to OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government
Everything you believe about science has hidden agendas by the above funders in the area of focus. Nobody has your interest at heart, just what is in your pocket....because the charitable organizations are not getting money outside the church gate on a Sunday morning either.
It's worthwhile looking for areas to focus on (for the people) by looking at previous events documented in history for potential inspiration for scientific direction but the banking system is set up so they get all your money and some extra on top of it. So, say good luck to that, just like the solar panels on the moon. I can almost predict that NASA and the media will do as much as the can, to make some other part of space sound more interesting than the moon. I'm not sure how many independent media portals there are but most are owned by few entities.
Nobody would fund the possibility that mobile phone radiation could cause cancer because cancer makes money....or genetically modified food. There will be research for GMF though because people want that but it will not reach the conclusion you hope it would, and certainly won't change the world.0 -
You seem to be entirely misinterpreting the tone is scientific discourse...Thanks.
The way I see it, is that the problem is actually the authority, with which the scientific community appear to have, and because of that, the power to influence.
I'm sure you know in economics it's very different, different because everyone can see it so clearly and understand how much of an inexact science it is; with the government a huge issue is transparency.
With the scientific community, they're protected by themselves and nobody outside the field, could dare to attack them. They would be ridiculed as they walked down the street. At the same time, this community of people are key figures of authority on certain issues which politicians, business etc. rely on.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there is a governing body, but if there was, the situation would be even worse. There comes a time when ultimately a select few have all the power and there the ones with the money, and they can do what they want with it, including paying off who they want with it.....everyman has his price so they say whether your talking about money or something else.
(1) The 'scientific community' have no authority. None at all. In fact the notion of speaking from authority is anathema to the scientific method. All are open to having their theories questioned, poked and prodded. That's how scientific progress happens, with each 'new' development being built on what came before.
(2) Economics is not a science. The only people to claim it is are economists. And social scientists. Who are not scientists either.
(3) The only thing that protects scientists is the veracity of the information they put forward. They're not all right all of the time. And usually welcome the correction as improving the wealth of common kmowledge.
(4) Of course politicians should rely on the advice of people uniquely qualified to know what they're talking about. Why wouldn't they? They should do it more as regards climate change, homeopathy etc.
(5) I'm not going to get into BS conspiracy theories here. There's a perfectly fine forum where all that ballcocks. Can be avoided as a job lot.0 -
You seem to be entirely misinterpreting the tone is scientific discourse...
(1) The 'scientific community' have no authority. None at all. In fact the notion of speaking from authority is anathema to the scientific method. All are open to having their theories questioned, poked and prodded. That's how scientific progress happens, with each 'new' development being built on what came before.
Knowledge is power. Power is authority. Hidden if that suits you.(2) Economics is not a science. The only people to claim it is are economists. And social scientists. Who are not scientists either.
What's wrong with those kind of sciences? They can predict and get proof even if it doesn't last very long.(3) The only thing that protects scientists is the veracity of the information they put forward. They're not all right all of the time. And usually welcome the correction as improving the wealth of common kmowledge.
Yep, but there can be conflicting interests and money pays for what they do.(4) Of course politicians should rely on the advice of people uniquely qualified to know what they're talking about. Why wouldn't they?
Yep. Who are these qualified people though and who pays them?They should do it more as regards climate change, homeopathy etc.
I agree. They don't though and won't.(5) I'm not going to get into BS conspiracy theories here. There's a perfectly fine forum where all that ballcocks. Can be avoided as a job lot.
I've attempted to do that in further posts and brought the scientific concepts back to something that's more on topic. The idea behind this angle is to focus on what areas of science humans should focus on, which would include homeopathy. That's not going to happen either.0 -
OK. Its late. You're posting Bull5hit that I couldn't be bothered with. I'm definitely out now.
Y'know, there are more appropriate fluffy thinking forums on here? The problem with posting on here is the danger of running into people who know stuff.
:rolleyes:0 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement