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

[jw33]

[Scott Mc]

Well played!

[Strychnine]

Lol I don't have to prove anything to be skeptical. I dont care enough one way or another to put the research into it. Remember the last time Harvard observed gravitational waves?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/04/gravitational-wave-discovery-dust-big-bang-inflation

At least these guys say they've peer reviewed...but there are a lot more eyes on it now. Harvard did a supreme job of following the data that they wanted to see in an effort to prove what they wanted to prove.

You started arguing against yourself in your own post, "At least these guys say they've peer reviewed."
Your link:
"Discovered" March 17, 2014
Debunked article June 4, 2014
79 days

unveiled their surprise discovery at a press conference at Harvard, before they had published their results in a peer-reviewed journal

Shit, I'm sorry, I forgot... I'm not supposed to paste/highlight.

This time around:
Discovered Sept. 14, 2015
Announced Feb 16 2016
150 days

Reitze said the team, knowing the checkered history of gravitational wave detections that were later discredited, took special care to have the results verified and peer-reviewed prior to the big announcement. The scientists even looked for the possible handiwork of a computer hacker, Reitze said. All reviews held up.

(is highlighting ok there?)

But whatever. I'll be the hack, hypocrite, fake, etc. I honestly don't care that much around here (no offense to anyone else), but I've noticed a lot of the guys I actually talk to in real life don't even post much anymore. When I took 15 minutes to write that post about a potentially world changing data it was actually a fun break for me. I was probably seven beers deep, taking a break from writing a paper we're trying to get published, and still feeling like shit for having to lay off 19 people in one day. Sorry I wasn't as funny as Yale... better luck next time.

This is my favorite part, btw:

Now...how about you tell me how this research is going to change my world. Quantify it...don't copy and paste a bunch of data. How about you have some original content of your own here.

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...

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?

That was a summary, btw. I'd hate to paste/highlight and make you read more than necessary: http://www.livescience.com/48922-the...real-life.html

It was said this week that prior science has let us see the universe and this new breakthrough has let us hear it. That's a completely new realm of understanding, and it might take a while to grow, so forgive me if I don't post any "I told you so" links in the near future. It's not my job to tell you how it will change your world, but it is pretty cool just to be aware of what's going on out there on the cutting edge of science. 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.

Ruffdaddy, this was written while taking a break from actual important shit. I apologize if you feel my time management skills are lacking,

You lost any technical credibility with me when you posted an article about a damn wireline wellbore cleaner and thought it was going to revolutionize fracking (or whatever that basic bitch tool was that you assumed was a big deal). It was a clear demonstration that you read a sales sheet or press release, didn't understand the technology...but decided to blab about it as if you're an expert. I see guys like you everyday at work...you feel for a sales pitch.

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:

average increase in production for the initial 27 US wells treated with plasma pulse technology is 295%

made you lose respect for me? Awesome




As I was typing that last sentence I had another thought.

It was a clear demonstration that you read a sales sheet or press release, didn't understand the technology...but decided to blab about it as if you're an expert. I see guys like you everyday at work...you feel for a sales pitch.

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."

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.

[Ruffdaddy]

Lol I don't have to prove anything to be skeptical. I dont care enough one way or another to put the research into it. Remember the last time Harvard observed gravitational waves?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/04/gravitational-wave-discovery-dust-big-bang-inflation

At least these guys say they've peer reviewed...but there are a lot more eyes on it now. Harvard did a supreme job of following the data that they wanted to see in an effort to prove what they wanted to prove.

[black2002ls]

LOL get black2002ls in here. He's the one with the damn physics degree.

I am so far removed from the field that you did a much better job of explaining it than I could have...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Mysticcobrakilla]

Oh deer

[YALE]

I'll really hammer it home for you, Ruffdaddy. It's fine to want to pick apart biased research. Pulling a different bunk paper doesn't make the gravitational waves paper wrong. If you think there's bias in the research in question, then that is the only place you can prove it.

[YALE]

Since you're asking Strychnine to disprove himself Ruffdaddy, why not do the same and pick apart the paper you presume is bunk? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't even have to disprove the math. Just browse it for bias and logical fallacies.

[Rick Modena]

Oh you butt hurt alright!

[Ruffdaddy]

Ill try to post a real world example tomorrow if i have more time. Right now im about to get rowdy and will probably end up on 6th...so any post later probably will be full of stupid.

[Ruffdaddy]

I'm all for skepticism, but what makes you think the "gravity waves things" is inherently based on biased research?

Any time someone is setting out to prove something...the research is inherently biased. When youre looking for any correlation to prove your point...its easy to get tunnel vision and ignore the fact that other sources may be contributing to the data trends.

Im not saying biased research is always wrong, but its more prone to error and manipulation. Thats the main source of my skepticism.

IIRC, you're an engineer. So im sure youve seen people go about solving a problem that they thought they already knew the answer to...only to end up wasting a lot of money and time.

[46Tbird]

As soon as i read the gravity waves thing...i immediately thought that it sounded like something someone was out to prove was true. If thats your only goal...youll make the data "prove" it every time.

I'm all for skepticism, but what makes you think the "gravity waves things" is inherently based on biased research?

[Ruffdaddy]

Oh snap.

Hahaha...as I was typing that...all I could think was that i knew you were going to be by shortly with popcorn.

[slow99]

Oh snap.

[Ruffdaddy]

Haha...man there's not need to get yourself all offended and butt hurt over this. I can't believe the tantrum you just threw over skepticism. It's like 10pm on a Friday night and you get so worked up that you put this much effort into a post. You had to sit there and think "Ruffdaddy is skeptical about scientific research?!?! I'll show him with the same data that he's skeptical of!"...That's like using the bible to argue with people who don't believe in the bible.

Isn't that the point? Or are you saying they lied about the data collected?

That's the point if you're only setting out to prove what you want. But that's not the point of unbiased research. Like I said...data can be made to tell whatever story you want.

...
Blah Blah Blah
....


Humanity is capable of building a machine that can measure a wavelength offset equal to 1/1000 the diameter of a proton...
But you still think it was some dude messing with data just to get more grant funding for reaserch? I know when it comes to SpaceX specifically you like to call people fanboys, but you have to realize the universal significance of this... right?

I'm not sure why you threw a hissy fit..but I'll call you out here and give you a reason to cry.

You're a hypocrite and a fake. You are trying to skew my words about spaceX just to side with your rhetoric? Rodney is right about you man...you post a few articles and highlite some words...but complain when others do it? Now you're changing my words to suit your biased point? What was it you said Rodney was doing with his "informational" posts?

You know damn well when I talk about spaceX fanbois...it's because they are trying to discredit what Bezos is doing with the same technology. It has nothing to do with spaceX, it has to do with the people that think anything spaceX does is better than blue origin simply because it's spaceX.

You lost any technical credibility with me when you posted an article about a damn wireline wellbore cleaner and thought it was going to revolutionize fracking (or whatever that basic bitch tool was that you assumed was a big deal). It was a clear demonstration that you read a sales sheet or press release, didn't understand the technology...but decided to blab about it as if you're an expert. I see guys like you everyday at work...you feel for a sales pitch.

You lost any respect I had for you when you tried to stretch my words to suit your case.

If I had to guess...you're a pretengineer (IE) that cares more about science fiction than real world technology. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that...but don't throw a fit when when stuff is questioned. Don't try to skew my words because your feelings are hurt.

Now...how about you tell me how this research is going to change my world. Quantify it...don't copy and paste a bunch of data. How about you have some original content of your own here.

Or at least stick to Responses like Yale...that was at least funny.