It's useless science Friday in my head - Welcome to the show.

[YALE]

No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Peer reviewed results of something Ruffdaddy finds interesting are science facts, but peer reviewed results of something he doesn't like are science fiction. Anyone who argues with that is biased.

[Scott Mc]

No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

[Tremor14]

[Ruffdaddy]

Wow...If I had written the response I had hoped to get ahead of time...it still wouldn't have been this good. This is a gold mine for proving my exact point regarding bias, BS and blabbing.

You started arguing against yourself in your own post, "At least these guys say they've peer reviewed."
Your link:

Lol you literally don't understand what it means when someone is being unbiased. Your mind is so set on data only being presented to prove one point...that you still can't understand why skepticism would exist. I knew damn well it wouldn't suit my point to bring out the fact that this was peer reviewed while the other wasn't...but I'm not going to omit the truth just to prove a point to some random guy on the internet. Something you repeatedly do.

This is my favorite part, btw:

Why would I have my own original content? Did I make the discoveries or do the original calculations? Original content in that realm means PhD level papers - unless we're going to pull things out of our asses - and we all know that no one here has a PhD in Physics. Is that a deal breaker for you? You need primary source info for everything? Why not just tell you how past breakthroughs in the basic understanding of our universe have not sucked and let you extrapolate...

Oh I know you don't have original content. Like I said...I finally realized the kinda guy you are. You're the guy that takes other people's original content and repackages it...then makes sure to throw his name on the title slide and try to be the first to tell the boss. That's the reason I'm giving you so much shit...at work I have to be political and take the long route to exposing that crap. But here...I get to call you out however I want. You don't have to have a PhD to tell me why this might be useful...that's an intentionally ignorant statement.

1905/1915: Einstein's theories of relativity are published
1916: Ruffdaddy - "Sure, but WTF does it mean to me?"
Times goes on...
We need the theory of relativity to make GPS systems work
We need the theory of relativity to build nuclear power plants
Without relativity magnetism (specifically, electromagnetism) and light theory would be unnecessary
CRT TVs - they had to account for relativistic effects to work properly...
Did you know the color of gold is actually due to relativistic effects?

Somehow...all of this happened without the $1.1 billion invested to "hear" gravitational waves. And of course if they didn't hear something...that gravy train would be cut off. Why would I be skeptical?

...It's my job (right now) to keep oil in the pipelines and (in the future) to make sure the world's energy needs are met. I don't have to be an expert on gravitational waves to appreciate the work that went into this discovery.

So what exactly is your job? I mean how are you really helping to keep the oil in the pipelines? Are you simply talking peoples original content and condensing it into reports? What TRUE value are you bringing to the industry? There are a lot of us working really hard to make sure that the worlds energy needs are met, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that we're in the midst of a shortage. I'm not going to play like I'm some energy hero...because I'm not and neither are you.

My real job is to make it as cheap as possible to extract oil from the ground by developing technology to enhance reserve recoveries. The industry has never been about that philosophical BS of meeting the worlds energy needs...it's been about making money. Afterall...OPEC was founded on throttling production to ensure the prices stay at a reasonable level for income.

I really don't know what article you're talking about, but calling anything "basic bitch" makes you sound like some college aged chick judging other girls in line at Starbucks.
Was it the Russian guy investing in ultrasonic tech for cleaning perfs? The fact that I posted about a Russian billionaire investing <0.1% of his net worth in a new tech that, per real world results:

made you lose respect for me? Awesome

That's the one, another good example of multiple aspects of Bias. You forgot to also quote the part where you say you hadn't even read far enough into it to understand that it wasn't a new frac tool. See this goes into the conclusion that you blab about stuff before you even understand it. It also proves that when you're trying to prove something, you are a frequent user of data omission.

In that very post, you fell subject to research bias. Of course that company only published the most beneficial data to suit their sales pitch. However you were so wrapped up in the world of "proving", that you didn't realize that the most recent society of petroleum engineers publication regarding that technology states an increase far less than the original claims. And even SPE papers are sales pitches, but they have to detail the data more thoroughly than a standard marketing sheet. (that SPE paper is referenced on the companies website btw...you don't even have to have a onePetro account)

You see how the first article you posted claims a 295% increase in production...yet the SPE paper reduces that to 85%. Let's not even get into the need to review the recovery curves after stimulation or intervention as we know that will probably make your "copy and paste" of 295% look even worse.

Not only that...but there are already existing ultrasonic and acoustic tools out there doing the same thing. Maybe there is a different method of generating the waves...but that doesn't mean it's better. Not to mention acid treatments and other forms of stimulation or intervention.

Are you starting to see why I have a problem with research bias now? Imagine that you had been sold a 295% increase in recovery while the true result was less than 1/3rd of that. The economics of the treatment change drastically with that data.

As I was typing that last sentence I had another thought.
I was with an exec from a large well servicing company last night, in his own home, and he told me, "I respect you because you don't bullshit me. I know that if you tell me something it's going to be a researched fact and not some sales bullshit just to get me to believe something."

Haha...is this supposed to impress me? On valentines day, you were having a date with some exec of a servicing company? How about you go tell this exec that you know how he can increase the production of a well by 295%..tell me how that works out (hint...I already know).

I think I'll pull an Eric and take a break for a bit. I don't have to prove shit, and well... I don't have shit to prove
This is not you "running me off" but more of a "I'll just do better things with my time," so you guys have fun.

If you're getting this spun up over skepticism...that's the best thing you can do.

UNFUCKWITHABLE...lol...yeah about that...

[Tremor14]

so do they lock the thread?

this is as devastating as when slow99 said he wouldnt help people with financial advice!

[cobrajet69]

Fucking Matt... LOL!

"UNFUCKWITHABLE" /



David

[bcoop]

Yep. Pathetic.

[Samhain]

What a fucking shame.

[lowthreeohz]

Way to go ruffdiddy..

[Rick Modena]

I really don't know what article you're talking about, but calling anything "basic bitch" makes you sound like some college aged chick judging other girls in line at Starbucks.

Oh he's a chick alright, don't forget he has his own CNC machine at home to make dildos...

I think I'll pull an Eric and take a break for a bit. I don't have to prove shit, and well... I don't have shit to prove
This is not you "running me off" but more of a "I'll just do better things with my time," so you guys have fun.

Matt, don't let this fool get under your skin, its what some of these tools do around here, look to see who they can fuck with, thats it, dude...

[BMCSean]

Lol

[Tremor14]

just dropping by to watch ruffdaddy take this L.

[black2002ls]

You have zero clue, you retarded fuck. Go back to bragging about being an engineer, you're out of your own league talking shit to Matt.

Truth! Like was said earlier, it is fairly easy to follow along and understand what is going on if you read the article.

I can understand the argument that if you are looking to prove something you have a tendency to see what you want to prove your theory. However, there is obvious proof, as shown by Matt, that they did their due diligence to show the accuracy of the data, and to have it reviewed before they published the paper.

But hell, what do I know, I'm no PhD in Physics....

[Baron Von Crowder]

You're a hypocrite and a fake...

You have zero clue, you retarded fuck. Go back to bragging about being an engineer, you're out of your own league talking shit to Matt.

[black2002ls]

Well. That escalated quickly! Nice job!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk