Jump to content

Scientists Have Failed Humanity For Over 50 Years


CalDaedalus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Congratulations Tom' date=' you just won the Award for Best Denial of The Day, so far. Plus an Obfuscation cluster.

[/quote']

 

Pull the dictionary out from under the short leg of your couch and look up the word "obfuscation". There was nothing about my comment that made anything unclear. In fact the exact opposite is true; if you understand the historical record of scientific discovery it becomes perfectly clear you can't expect a revolution every half century.

 

The truth is, if you get a PhD and work for UC National Labs, you might as well take your PhD and roll it onto a roll of toilet paper, because that will be the most useful thing you will do with it as long as you are on welfare with UC National Labs.

 

First of all, it's up to you to substantiate your claim that no fruitful scientific research goes on at the UC Labs, not simply to declare "The truth is..."

 

And second, UC National Labs are not the only scientific institutions in this country, and they can hardly be responsible for bringing scientific progress to a screeching halt, even if your outlandish claim was true.

 

Again, what I am saying is that scientists must work together in a collaboration of academic institutions to achieve anything, that's what they did to create Quantum Mechanics.

 

They do work together in such collaborations, and routinely at that. I was part of one as a graduate student, and I know of many, many others. If you actually took the time to examine the facts before you concocted your theory it would look more like a well-reasoned objection to the way things are done, and less like an idiotic rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pull the dictionary out from under the short leg of your couch and look up the word "obfuscation". There was nothing about my comment that made anything unclear. In fact the exact opposite is true; if you understand the historical record of scientific discovery it becomes perfectly clear you can't expect a revolution every half century.

You sure don't recognize denial when you write it, this is the 21st century and we have supercomputers to help us think, and we still don't have the brains to make a discovery beyond quantum mechanics. But we sure write a lot of best selling science-science fiction books and waste a lot of time and careers on humungous machinenexperiments instead of actually accomplishing anything.

 

First of all' date=' it's up to you to [b']substantiate[/b] your claim that no fruitful scientific research goes on at the UC Labs, not simply to declare "The truth is..."

And second, UC National Labs are not the only scientific institutions in this country, and they can hardly be responsible for bringing scientific progress to a screeching halt, even if your outlandish claim was true.

50 years of failure, from Teller LLNL on especially, speaks for itself. Warning: University of California physics PhDs don't even make good toilet paper.

 

They do[/b'] work together in such collaborations, and routinely at that. I was part of one as a graduate student, and I know of many, many others. If you actually took the time to examine the facts before you concocted your theory it would look more like a well-reasoned objection to the way things are done, and less like an idiotic rant.
CONGRATULATIONS for trying, now try harder, and stay away from government welfare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations Tom, you just won the Award for Best Denial of The Day, so far. Plus an Obfuscation cluster.
BhavinB was right, you've stopped up your ears with enormous wads of self-proclaimed "truth" and set up a system where you alone are correct. These are the types of threads that are doomed to Moderator closure because the OP has no intention of debating, only of enlightening the blind masses.
The truth is, if you get a PhD and work for UC National Labs, you might as well take your PhD and roll it onto a roll of toilet paper, because that will be the most useful thing you will do with it as long as you are on welfare with UC National Labs.
You are waving the "truth" around almost as much as your hands.
Again, what I am saying is that scientists must work together in a collaboration of academic institutions to achieve anything, that's what they did to create Quantum Mechanics.
You need to provide more global evidence that this is not the case.
If you actually took the time to examine the facts before you concocted your theory[/b'] it would look more like a well-reasoned objection to the way things are done, and less like an idiotic rant.
Mr. Mattson, with all due respect sir, please refrain from granting this rant the honor of "theory" status. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sure don't recognize denial when you write it' date='

[/quote']

 

Sure I do. I am acutely aware that I am denying that your claims have any merit.

 

this is the 21st century and we have supercomputers to help us think, and we still don't have the brains to make a discovery beyond quantum mechanics.

 

Good grief.

 

First of all, computers cannot think for themselves, so it is certain that they cannot help us think. A computer, no matter how sophisticated, is just a black box. Everything that goes into it and that comes out of it must be analyzed and scrutinized by a living, breathing, thinking human being.

 

And second we have made a substantial discovery beyond quantum mechanics. It's called quantum field theory, which forms the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

And third, it is perfectly clear to anyone who knows the subject why we haven't gone beyond that yet: More powerful machines are needed to supply the data that is needed to determine the direction that research should take. The physics of Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, et al uniquivocally tells us that we need those overpriced supertoys that you bemoan.

 

But we sure write a lot of best selling science-science fiction books and waste a lot of time and careers on humungous machinenexperiments instead of actually accomplishing anything.

 

See above. More powerful machines are necessary to move beyond the Standard Model.

 

50 years of failure, from Teller LLNL on especially, speaks for itself. Warning: University of California physics PhDs don't even make good toilet paper.

 

I've already answered this point. Scientific revolutions don't happen that fast. It's time to move on.

 

CONGRATULATIONS for trying, now try harder, and stay away from government welfare.

 

I don't need your advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was at Cal I heard a lot of preaching about Ethics for Humanity, which I have chosen to live by, but since graduation I have read far too many news reports on the failures to practice ethics by the University of California that I have become ashamed to admit I have anything to do with them because they are too criminally corrupt to deal with anymore.
It is unfortunate that the media rarely stirs itself to write articles about those who do practice good ethics. It is usually the bad conduct that gets reported but one shouldn't take that to mean there are no good ethical practices. It is not science's fault that the media panders to base tastes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BhavinB was right, you've stopped up your ears with enormous wads of self-proclaimed "truth" and set up a system where you alone are correct. These are the types of threads that are doomed to Moderator closure because the OP has no intention of debating, only of enlightening the blind masses.

I believe this is called "truthiness."

 

truthiness, n: the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that the media rarely stirs itself to write articles about those who do practice good ethics. It is usually the bad conduct that gets reported but one shouldn't take that to mean there are no good ethical practices. It is not science's fault that the media panders to base tastes.
I accept that statement as a truth. Neither San Diego nor Los Angeles newspapers has a decent science section, and that's a great shame against the media.

 

I have been privileged to work with many terrific scientists, especially because I refused to have anything to do with welfare science like UC National Labs, and I have great respect for their Honor, Integrity, Ethics, Morals and contributions to Humanity.

 

So I apologize if my statements are taken as focusing on the general scientific populatoin, they only apply to those who live off of tenured welfare.

 

However, having made that admission, we have to do better than to say it takes 300 years between true discoveries, and return to the ethical scientific standards and methods of Schrodinger et al. who made quantum mechanics happen. Machinenexperiments are just excuses for failure to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthiness, n: the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.
Good call, Cap'n. I'll have to remember that one.

 

The biggest shame is that there may be a great deal of truth underneath the overly dramatic broad brush strokes the OP chooses to use against the global scientific community. Electing to escalate a perceived problem at the University of California into a worldwide conspiracy is a poor choice, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However' date=' having made that admission, we have to do better than to say it takes 300 years between true discoveries,

[/quote']

 

I didn't say that it takes 300 years, I said that it took 300 years. The next scienfitic revolution could happen next year for all I know.

 

I also said that your expectation that the next revolution should have occured within 50 years of the last one is not in accord with the historical record, and is therefore unreasonable.

 

and return to the ethical scientific standards and methods of Schrodinger et al. who made quantum mechanics happen.

 

What reasons do you have for thinking that those standards were ever abandoned? And please don't cite 50 years of failed attempts from the UC labs. That point has already been addressed, and I remain convinced that your tirade against the UC system is nothing more than slander based on misunderstanding.

 

Machinenexperiments are just excuses for failure to think.

 

I have no idea of what you mean by "machinenexperiments" but it seems to me that your concept here is infected with not only an ignorance of what goes on in scientific research, but also a flat-out contradiction.

 

First, on the necessity of expensive machinery to move beyond the Standard Model: The science of the last century was so overwhelmingly triumphant that that it successfully predicts physical phenomena over the highest energy domains that we are capable of generating in a laboratory setting. That means that we certainly will not move beyond the Standard Model until we solve the engineering problem of building an accelerator that is capable of generating much, much higher energies. Without data from those higher energies scientists will be unable to rule out competing theories. Literally any theory that extrapolates back to the Standard Model and/or General Relativity could be considered valid. This has nothing to do with a failure to think.

 

And second, on the use of machines in scientific research: You seemed perfectly content to cite supercomputers in your indictment against the UC Labs. Your reason for citing them? Because they can help us think (!). So, it's OK to use computers as a substitute for analysis, but not other machines? You'll have to pardon the rest of us for not drawing the same arbitrary line in the sand that you chose to draw. Your understanding is flawed anyway. As I already pointed out, computers cannot do anything even remotely close to what you imagine they can do. I do use computers in my work, but not because they help me think. Computers aid my work because they aid in data processing, thus giving me more to think about.

 

The more information scientists must contend with, the more patient the rest of the world must be in waiting for the next revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call' date=' Cap'n. I'll have to remember that one.

The biggest shame is that there may be a great deal of truth underneath the overly dramatic broad brush strokes the OP chooses to use against the o tscientific community. Electing to escalate a perceived problem at the University of California into a worldwide conspiracy is a poor choice, imo.[/quote']Maybe I need to reuturn square one at this point, my main thesis is that Humanity is threatened rapid devolution to a worldwide state of poverty, disease and violence as a result of the out of control oil wars, terrorism, pollution, etc.

 

And it is past due time when WE MUST implement total replacements for all fossil fuel energy sources with the greatest sense of urgency.

 

The immediate replacement is accelerating the building of fission plants like the Japanese have done to solve their oil dependence problems.

 

We also need immediate development of feasible fuel cells for transportation, residential and other small business and industrial loads.

 

Most importantly for the long term future, WE MUST discover the solution to fusion energy production for large population power requirements. This last key to the future is why I have so harshly condemned the University of California and their UC National Labs for wasting so many valuable national resources because of failed cultural values. And a fusion breakthrough first and foremost requires a gedankenexperiment collaboration such as used for quantum mechanics.

 

But I guess what you are all telling me is that there is no replacement for the quantum mechanics physics collaboration today are in the near future before the polar icecaps melt completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I need to reuturn square one at this point, my main thesis is that Humanity is threatened rapid devolution to a worldwide state of poverty, disease and violence as a result of the out of control oil wars, terrorism, pollution, etc.
I'm very impressed that you can see this. Most people who start with a rant never leave that position.

 

Science is just one of many factors in play. We are definitely in a time of turmoil. Historically this happens before great change can occur.

And it is past due time when WE MUST implement total replacements for all fossil fuel energy sources with the greatest sense of urgency.
We'll make it, I have no doubt, and oddly enough it will probably be the rich and powerful despots we bemoan who will lead the way. They want to stay rich and powerful, so energy we can all afford is an absolute necessity that will drive the market.
We also need immediate development of feasible fuel cells for transportation, residential and other small business and industrial loads.
Fuel cells that aren't fossil fuel based. Are you suggesting some sort of personal use cells beyond the obvious automotive uses? Viable fuel that can power an individual home or business?
Most importantly for the long term future, WE MUST discover the solution to fusion energy production for large population power requirements. This last key to the future is why I have so harshly condemned the University of California and their UC National Labs for wasting so many valuable national resources because of failed cultural values. And a fusion breakthrough first and foremost requires a gedankenexperiment collaboration such as used for quantum mechanics.
Perhaps it is UC's role to provide the highly funded machine experiments while others provide the lower-cost a priori methodology. Collaborative efforts usually work best when the strengths of all involved are taken into consideration.
But I guess what you are all telling me is that there is no replacement for the quantum mechanics physics collaboration today are in the near future before the polar icecaps melt completely.
* sigh *
Link to comment
Share on other sites

---I remain convinced that your tirade against the UC system is nothing more than slander based on misunderstanding.---

My "tirade" against UC National Labs is that I know what goes on there best, plus there have been far too many documentations of their failures in science and administration at UC National Labs, they are the ones that Edward Teller (Dr. Strangelove) built the LLNL toys for focused on fusion, and they have "created" the greatest scientific failure in history of science.

 

First, on the necessity of expensive machinery to move beyond the Standard Model: The science of the last century was so overwhelmingly triumphant that that it successfully predicts physical phenomena over the highest energy domains that we are capable of generating in a laboratory setting. That means that we certainly will not move beyond the Standard Model until we solve the engineering problem of building an accelerator that is capable of generating much, much higher energies. Without data from those higher energies scientists will be unable to rule out competing theories. Literally any[/b'] theory that extrapolates back to the Standard Model and/or General Relativity could be considered valid. This has nothing to do with a failure to think.
Golly I can't remember the hundreds of times that PR statement has been issued over the last 50 years.

 

And second, on the use of machines in scientific research: You seemed perfectly content to cite supercomputers in your indictment against the UC Labs. Your reason for citing them? Because they can help us think[/i'] (!). ---
You bring up a most excellent point, scientists must THINK first before the supercomputers can do anything more than process GIGO. Supercomputers, like accelerators need people who THINK before accelerating (bits as well as particles) and we obviously don't have enough of those who would rather think first before accelerating.

 

The more information scientists must contend with, the more patient the rest of the world must be in waiting for the next revolution.
NEWS FLASH: 9/11 occurred, we are at war in Iraq, terrorism and secular warfare are out of control, Africans are starving by the million, polar icecaps are melting by the cubic miles, global warming and international pollution without borders are facts, etc., etc., etc.

 

TIME HAS RUN OUT, TRY THINKING HARDER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---* sigh *
You sure got that right.

 

* sigh *

 

P.S. How about another Manhattan Project to end the current oil wars, oil terrorism, etc.:

 

1) Produce feasible fuel cells for immediate implementation in transportation, individual homes , businesses, anyone in the world?

 

2) Produce feasible fusion power generation to prevent international social, political and economic chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Produce feasible fuel cells for immediate implementation in transportation' date=' individual homes , businesses, anyone in the world?

 

2) Produce feasible fusion power generation to prevent international social, political and economic chaos.[/quote']Easy questions with hard solutions. What do the fuel cells power for home use, DC electric generators? Enormous amounts of retooling, restructuring of economic factors and a complete revamp of many industries. Remember that "feasible" means "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are". So "feasible" really isn't applicable regarding this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TIME HAS RUN OUT, TRY THINKING HARDER
I know it seems like we're behind in many areas but trust me, the last thing in the world you really want is to have something startling happen almost overnight. It's a romantic fantasy to suddenly stumble on the key to cold fusion or a simple cure for cancer, but economies and infrastructures need time to coordinate and adjust, and we are in the middle of that process right now (and indeed, all the time).

 

When it doesn't happen this way, you get violent errors and unstable policies that don't do anyone any good. What if a cure for cancer suddenly shows up out of left field tonight. Without ways to implement it's manufacture and distribution, everyone who has cancer or worries about it is going to want the cure NOW. Without scientists, manufacturers, distributors, the media, the government, the entire apparatus of modern civilization behind you, you could end up hurting instead of helping.

 

Progress is slow but inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys. Don't bash CalDaedalus too much, you don't know what he's been doing. Maybe he's cured a desiese, or thought up some way to build a car without using a huge amount of energy; I doubt it, in fact I doubt that he's got many achivements on his belt. But maybe, just maybe, you actually have made less discovories than him.

 

Who am I kidding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--------

Progress is slow but inevitable.

So what you folks are really saying PfA is let the oil wars continue' date=' to hell with global warming, we have far more excuses for failing than we do solutions for the sake of Humanity![/b']

 

You folks have been on tenured welfare for far too long, and it's not just UC National Labs that is the problem, it's the entire scientific community that just watches or looks the other way, fails and say: "Progress is slow but inevitable", which might as well be an epitaph for the Human Race.

 

Except, for about 100 years now, Progress Has Been Nonexistent, that is unless you consider fission and fusion bombs to be the ultimate end to the age of physics.

 

Either you folks get the best and the brightest together in a University environment (no government participation allowed, they give crimes against humanity a whole new definition, because of the hideously negative consequences of politics of corruption and academic welfare state) and gedankenexperiment the solutions together soon, or we are screwed because "inevitable" just ain't going to happen in time otherwise.

 

In the meantime, while you are waiting for "inevitable", check out National Geographic, NASA, etc. satellite images of out of control worldwide pollution, ice melting, reductions in agricultural land, etc. that are proving we are running out of time, faster all the time, while earth dies in front of your eyes waiting for "inevitable".

 

Is this really the legacy of what you want to pass on to future generations, they are the ones you are going to have to explain your waiting for the "inevitable" theory to while you failed to do anything in the meantime with what we have available today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts are the literary equivalent of footstamping, screaming and bawling. Grow up for gods sake! You sound like a kid who has just realised that the world is not a wonderful perfect place - and now you want someone to blame.

 

Even if there was a shred to truth to what you are saying, do you really expect that your insulting posts are going to achieve anything. The vast majority of academia work very hard for very little money.

 

You seem to think that finding the brightest and best is essential but don't credit these people with enough intelligence to choose themselves how to persue their research.

 

We all know the world is faced with numerous problems. You seem to assume that science should always be able to solve them. It's like smoking 20-a-day, drinking beer and eating fast food everyday for forty years and expecting modern medicine to sort out all of your problems. When the doctors tell you there is nothing that can be done you would probably say -'well there should be, your just not trying. Medicine has failed me.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really the legacy of what you want to pass on to future generations, they are the ones you are going to have to explain your waiting for the "inevitable" theory to while you failed to do anything in the meantime with what we have available today?
So what the **** are you doing about it then? What discoveries have you made? How many photoelectric-cars have you invested in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you folks are really saying PfA is [b']let the oil wars continue, to hell with global warming, we have far more excuses for failing than we do solutions for the sake of Humanity![/b]
I'll say this again, a little louder: MY MOUTH HAS NO ROOM FOR YOUR WORDS. Stop trying to interpret what I'm really saying because what I'm really saying is very carefully formulated and typed out in previous posts. This is not IRC chat or a pub debate over beers. I am actually thinking as I type.

 

You're back to ranting and hand-waving and the decibel level is deafening you and others as to what is being said on both sides.

You folks have been on tenured welfare for far too long, and it's not just UC National Labs that is the problem, it's the entire scientific community that just watches or looks the other way, fails and say: "Progress is slow but inevitable", which might as well be an epitaph for the Human Race.
We're back to the entire scientific community again?!? What happened to:
So I apologize if my statements are taken as focusing on the general scientific populatoin, they only apply to those who live off of tenured welfare.

 

Except, for about 100 years now, Progress Has Been Nonexistent, that is unless you consider fission and fusion bombs to be the ultimate end to the age of physics.
You're joking with us now, right? No progress except fission? In the last 100 years?!

 

Either you folks get the best and the brightest together in a University environment (no government participation allowed, they give crimes against humanity a whole new definition, because of the hideously negative consequences of politics of corruption and academic welfare state) and gedankenexperiment the solutions together soon, or we are screwed because "inevitable" just ain't going to happen in time otherwise.
Oh, believe you me, "us folks" will get right on that. Because ALL politicians are corrupt, and gedankenexperiments are the ONLY solution, and I'm sure you've factored in every possible thing that is currently being done (or not done) before you joined us to point out the scientific community's flaws.
In the meantime, while you are waiting for "inevitable", check out National Geographic, NASA, etc. satellite images of out of control worldwide pollution, ice melting, reductions in agricultural land, etc. that are proving we are running out of time, faster all the time, while earth dies in front of your eyes waiting for "inevitable".
Thanks goodness someone cares about what's happening (I mean, besides National Geographic, NASA, the governments and corporations who make the satellite images available, the scientists who evaluate the information, and, you know, a host of others).
Is this really the legacy of what you want to pass on to future generations, they are the ones you are going to have to explain your waiting for the "inevitable" theory to while you failed to do anything in the meantime with what we have available today?
Everyone shares your concerns. Seriously, do you think you're the only person who wants a future? I realize things can't happen soon enough for you but I also wonder if things would EVER happen soon enough to suit you. As I mentioned before, if change happens too fast it catches us by surprise and that's a bad thing, ALWAYS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "tirade" against UC National Labs is that I know what goes on there best' date=' plus there have been far too many documentations of their failures in science and administration at UC National Labs, they are the ones that Edward Teller (Dr. Strangelove) built the LLNL toys for focused on fusion, and they have "created" the greatest scientific failure in history of science.

[/quote']

 

You haven't shown any indication that you understand much of anything about what science is or what scientists do. Citing certain research programs that don't pan out is one thing. But your posts go far beyond the evidence you have presented. You conclude out of hand that there is no scientific merit to the research, that the scientists are unethically creating a self-insulated environment that allows them to keep their jobs without actually doing anything, and that the next scientfic revolution would have happened by now if not for those lackeys. You even extrapolated these 'catastrophes' to the entire scientific community before more rational minds put you in check. You are just spewing off at the keyboard.

 

Golly I can't remember the hundreds of times that PR statement has been issued over the last 50 years.

 

Look this is basic physics. If you want to probe smaller length scales (which is necessary to get beyond the standard model) then you have to use a higher energy probe. You can infer that much from the deBroglie relation, [imath]\lambda=\frac{h}{p}[/imath].

 

If it weren't for willfully ignorant people such as yourself the repetition wouldn't be necessary. This is the same physics that was discovered by the people you hold up as heroes. Indeed they are heroes, but you wouldn't know because you've never actually studied their work.

 

You bring up a most excellent point, scientists must THINK first before the supercomputers can do anything more than process GIGO. Supercomputers, like accelerators need people who THINK before accelerating (bits as well as particles) and we obviously don't have enough of those who would rather think first before accelerating.

 

NEWS FLASH: 9/11 occurred, we are at war in Iraq, terrorism and secular warfare are out of control, Africans are starving by the million, polar icecaps are melting by the cubic miles, global warming and international pollution without borders are facts, etc., etc., etc.

 

TIME HAS RUN OUT, TRY THINKING HARDER

 

You are an *****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.