What isn't science

[jte...@gmail.com]

From another thread...

Stevet wrote:

> Let you into a little secret. Science is neither
> American or capitalist or a product of market forces.

Here in reality, science comes down to money.

If your science has commercial applications, you
could probably get "Investment" cash to pay for it.
Otherwise, there's grants and grants are politics.

Period.

Wanna eat? You need grant money. Want grant money?
Please the people handing them out.

Now, none of what I am saying was even slightly
controversial during the Bush years. EVERYONE
knew how political the grant process was. Everyone.
The film "Flock of Dodos" (2006) illustrated it!

The problem, the real crime here is that everyone
started to pretend that Obama created a different
process, instead of just installed different people
with different priorities...

In Dubya Bush's day if you wanted grant money you'd
better not offend the creationists, and under Obama
if you wanted grant money you had to wet your pants
over the idea of it getting slightly warmer during
an ice age.

BOTH are genuinely stupid ideas corrupting science,
but you only had a problem with one of them.

Still do.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/145634977458

[Stevet]

<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From another thread...
>
> Stevet wrote:
>
>> Let you into a little secret. Science is neither
>> American or capitalist or a product of market forces.
>
> Here in reality, science comes down to money.

Here in reality it is not America.

The majority of both reality and science is outside America.

What goes on in your country stays in your country.

>
> If your science has commercial applications, you
> could probably get "Investment" cash to pay for it.
> Otherwise, there's grants and grants are politics.
>
> Period.
>
> Wanna eat? You need grant money. Want grant money?
> Please the people handing them out.
>
> Now, none of what I am saying was even slightly
> controversial during the Bush years. EVERYONE
> knew how political the grant process was. Everyone.
> The film "Flock of Dodos" (2006) illustrated it!
>
> The problem, the real crime here is that everyone
> started to pretend that Obama created a different
> process, instead of just installed different people
> with different priorities...
>
> In Dubya Bush's day if you wanted grant money you'd
> better not offend the creationists, and under Obama
> if you wanted grant money you had to wet your pants
> over the idea of it getting slightly warmer during
> an ice age.

So your solution is? Not to pay scientists in America?

>
> BOTH are genuinely stupid ideas corrupting science,
> but you only had a problem with one of them.
>
> Still do.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/145634977458
>
>

--
Stevet

[jte...@gmail.com]

Stevet wrote:

> Here in reality it is not America.

You're being dogmatic. And stupid. Major stupid.

America didn't invent politics, and it certainly
didn't invent the Nanny State or Big Brother. And,
yes, everyone on the planet "Science" costs money.

Stop gulping the Koolaid.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160736840559

[Stevet]

<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stevet wrote:
>
>> Here in reality it is not America.
>
> You're being dogmatic. And stupid. Major stupid.

What is dogmatic or stupid about not living in America?

>
> America didn't invent politics, and it certainly
> didn't invent the Nanny State or Big Brother. And,
> yes, everyone on the planet "Science" costs money.
>
> Stop gulping the Koolaid.

I have no idea what " koolaid" is, I presume it is one of your traditional
ethnic beverages consisting of sugar dissolved in water with a " pretty"
distinctive colouring agent added to distinguish it from all the others
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160736840559
>
>



--
Stevet

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 16, Stevet wrote
(in article <offo0r$376$1...@dont-email.me>):

> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stevet wrote:
> >
> > > Here in reality it is not America.
> >
> > You're being dogmatic. And stupid. Major stupid.
>
> What is dogmatic or stupid about not living in America?
> >
> > America didn't invent politics, and it certainly
> > didn't invent the Nanny State or Big Brother. And,
> > yes, everyone on the planet "Science" costs money.
> >
> > Stop gulping the Koolaid.
>
> I have no idea what " koolaid" is, I presume it is one of your traditional
> ethnic beverages consisting of sugar dissolved in water with a " pretty"
> distinctive colouring agent added to distinguish it from all the others

he is referring, in an incorrect way, to the infamous Jim Jones-inspired
People’s Temple mass murder-suicide, in which large numbers of religious
dolts forced poisoned Flavor Aide (NOT, repeat, not, Kool-Aide) onto less
enthusiastic members, including lots and lots of children, before drinking
some themselves. He is, I suspect, attempting to imply that any objections to
his nonsense are faith-based.

In short, he is being a fool.

[jte...@gmail.com]

Stevet wrote:

> What is

Apparently I wasn't... "Direct" enough for you
the first two times. My apologies to your Care
Giver.

Science costs money. It costs money everywhere.
And, as a result, science always serves the
agenda of those who are giving out the money.

Always. No exceptions.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160741423359

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Moron, Wolffan wrote:

> he is referring, in an incorrect way, to the infamous Jim Jones-inspired
> People’s Temple mass murder-suicide

Wow you just incorrectly referred to the infamous
Jim Jones-inspired People's Temple mass suicide!

What a fucking idiot you are!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160989973049

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 24, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote
(in article<fccac8ef-92aa-4eea...@googlegroups.com>):

> Moron, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > he is referring, in an incorrect way, to the infamous Jim Jones-inspired
> > People’s Temple mass murder-suicide
>
> Wow you just incorrectly referred to the infamous
> Jim Jones-inspired People's Temple mass suicide!

murder suicide. some of the victims didn’t want to go. a quick google would
reveal much.

>
>
> What a fucking idiot you are!

you really shouldn’t refer to yourself that way. the rest of us will be
happy to do it.
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160989973049

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Wolffan wrote:

> murder suicide. some of the victims didn’t
> want to go. a quick google would reveal much.

Okay, did the Google thing and your *Still*
an autistic moron for pretending that I
somehow was "Incorrect" in referring to you
Kool-aid guzzlers.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[Glenn]

"Wolffan" <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.1ECBA03800...@news.eternal-september.org...

Not all references to "drinking the Koolaid" are about the Jim Jones affair, nor did he, nor did he refer to or claim all were suicides.
And it is not only "dolts" who make such claims about what the drink actually was, as you do.

You're the fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

>

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 28, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote
(in article<928b39e6-6881-4605...@googlegroups.com>):

> Wolffan wrote:
>
> > murder suicide. some of the victims didn’t
> > want to go. a quick google would reveal much.
>
> Okay, did the Google thing and your *Still*
> an autistic moron for pretending that I
> somehow was "Incorrect" in referring to you
> Kool-aid guzzlers.

nope. And do get it right, it was FlavorAide. Which you would know if you’d
actually googled it instead of lying about it.
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161120164979

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 28, Glenn wrote
(in article <ogf7p8$7vm$1...@dont-email.me>):

nope.

> nor did he, nor did he refer to or claim all were suicides.
> And it is not only "dolts" who make such claims about what the drink actually
> was, as you do.
>
> You're the fool.

nope.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:44:53 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Stevet wrote:
>
> > What is
>
> Apparently I wasn't... "Direct" enough for you
> the first two times. My apologies to your Care
> Giver.
>
> Science costs money. It costs money everywhere.
> And, as a result, science always serves the
> agenda of those who are giving out the money.
>
> Always. No exceptions.

No. Not always. Research funding comes in two principle forms.
One are grants, which are gifts given to institutions with varying
restrictions. The other are research contracts.

The major difference between grants and research contracts is that
a grant is usually given through a non-profit organization and is a
gift with a fair latitude of application. There are no "deliverables".

A research contract is held to more of a degree of accountability and
usually has expected "deliverables". These might be reports of research
that have some embargo in terms of a delay of publication. There may be
software that is developed, or there may be patentable processes or
technology. It all depends on what is negotiated for the contract.





>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160741423359

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> > Science costs money. It costs money everywhere.
> > And, as a result, science always serves the
> > agenda of those who are giving out the money.
> >
> > Always. No exceptions.

> No. Not always.

Yes. Always. Again, not only is what I'm saying
the furthest thing from controversial, but it
was noted & discussed at length during the Bush
years when the creationists were in control.

Rent: A Flock of Dodos

Good luck!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Wolffan wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote

> > Okay, did the Google thing and your *Still*
> > an autistic moron for pretending that I
> > somehow was "Incorrect" in referring to you
> > Kool-aid guzzlers.

> nope. And do get it right, it was FlavorAide. Which

No, shit for brains, it was Kool-aid. I referred to
you as a Kool-aid guzzler.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > > Science costs money. It costs money everywhere.
> > > And, as a result, science always serves the
> > > agenda of those who are giving out the money.
> > >
> > > Always. No exceptions.
>
> > No. Not always.
>
> Yes. Always. Again, not only is what I'm saying
> the furthest thing from controversial, but it
> was noted & discussed at length during the Bush
> years when the creationists were in control.

Nope, you don't know what you are talking about. Typical
conspiracy-ism.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> Nope, you

You're a petty little man trying to make it about
me, because you know you can't win on facts.

If you want to eat, you need money. If you want
to wear clothing, you need money. If you want to
be able to pay bills, you need money. If you want
a phone, you need money. If you want to have a
family it needs to be supported, you need money.

Get it?

If you want to do science AND eat, someone has to
pay you.

Science comes down to money.

Always.

No exceptions.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163508433053

[John Stockwell]

The real question is not the naive statement that "science costs money" but
to what degree the funding source influences the research. That is a
much more complicated issue than you are willing to try to consider with
your simplistic-conspiracy-driven mind.



>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163508433053

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> The real question is not the naive statement that "science costs money"

Not only is reality naive but statements are questions.

Damn. You're a frigging idiot.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163579964038

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 3 August 2017 19:45:05 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>
> Damn. You're a frigging idiot.

Too complex English there. The dictionary that I have explains that
"frigging" is euphemism for "fucking". Then further that "euphemism"
is a word that means same but is used by those who are too much of a
pussy to use the actual word. And then that a "pussy" is a weak,
cowardly, or effeminate man. Why such deep self-irony?

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:45:05 AM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > The real question is not the naive statement that "science costs money"
>
> Not only is reality naive but statements are questions.
>
> Damn. You're a frigging idiot.

You still haven't demonstrated anything more than a conspiracy website
knowledge of research.


>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163579964038

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:37:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:45:05 AM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> John Stockwell wrote:
>>
>> > The real question is not the naive statement that "science costs money"
>>
>> Not only is reality naive but statements are questions.
>>
>> Damn. You're a frigging idiot.
>
>You still haven't demonstrated anything more than a conspiracy website
>knowledge of research.

Nor will he ever; one cannot demonstrate what one doesn't
understand.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:13:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

;-)

Kudos.

[Sadovnik Socratus]

  The existing interpretation of quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense. 
        WHY?
================

  The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by Israel Socratus /
====...
Maybe 99% thinks that everything began from big-bang.
A few % have another opinion:
Book 'A universe from nothing' by Lavrence M. Kruass.
===.
My opinion.
Why  everything was started from Nothing ?
Because there is fundamental fact in Nature :
The critical density in the whole Universe  is so small
that it cannot 'close'  the Universe into sphere.
And therefore the Universe as whole is flat - infinite flat.
But what to do with 'infinity' physicists don't know
and they try to escape (throw  out) concept of 'infinity'.
===..
I say that infinite (eternal) nothing has one physical
parameter: T=0K  and therefore  nothing is not nothingness.
We can use many theories to understand condition of T=0K continuum :

1) Theory of ideal gas  ( temperature is T=0K )
2) Hawking black hole radiation  ( temperature is T=0K )
3)  Bose-Einstein condensate  ( temperature is T=0K )
4) Dark energy  ( nothing is some kind of infinite energy )
5) Dark matter  ( consist of virtual particles, antiparticles )
6) SRT   ( explain behavior of quantum particles in nothingness )
7) QT   ( explain the reason and laws of quantum particles behavior )

These theories are subject for rethinking and ,by the way,
   such interpretation   obeys  Occam's  razor.
============...
P.S.
Scientists say:
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was proved
     that Big Bang  theory is correct.
     My opinion.
Have you see the waves on the surface of sea ?
But deep down of  the sea  , you know, the picture is different.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is only surface of infinite zero vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is a false vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is result of work
(fluctuation) of virtual particles.
Deep down of the 'Dirac's sea'  is state of  zero vacuum  T=0K
  with potential negative virtual particles: - E=Mc^2.
And according to the 'Law of conservation  and transformation  energy/mass'
these   virtual negative  particles  can change their potential state
into real  active positive  particles with energy E=hf.
( Casimir effect, Lamb shift )
Quantum effects (fluctuations)  are dominate in the Universe.
=====================
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============================

[Ernest Major]

On 05/08/2017 14:07, Sadovnik Socratus wrote:
> The existing interpretation of quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense.
> WHY?

There are several different interpretations of quantum mechanics. (I
subscribe to the pragmatic interpretation - aka "shut up and calculate".)

But the reason I'd give for quantum mechanics being contrary to common
sense is that common sense is a poor guide to events and processes
occuring on scales, spatial and temporal, far removed from everyday
experience. (Not that Feynmann's or Einstein's common sense is the same
as that of the man on the Clapham omnibus.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> ;-)
>
> Kudos.


How uncharacteristically brave of you...

(The sad part being, I'm not the least bit
sarcastic here)

You don't give a shit about science, you're
ignorant on the topic, you're just a partisan
rooting for "Your Side."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165752908567

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> You still haven't demonstrated anything more than a conspiracy website
> knowledge of research.

Yeah, because only conspiracy websites say that science
costs money...

Look. You're an idiot. You really are an idiot. This
should bother you. You should want to stop being an
idiot, yet here you are. Again.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165752908567