Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,115 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 864,590
Pageviews Today: 1,538,380Threads Today: 652Posts Today: 11,537
05:39 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject Who Wants To Bet Me On A Hypothesis Regarding Chemtrails?
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
I call bullshit on this person being a physicist. No actual scientist would jump to conclusions or fail to reach out to an expert in the field being discussed. There is no way this person understands geology or has even discussed levels of natural elements or reasons they could increase at ground level.

There are too many variables in or ecosystem to say that because we find something at ground level it must come from what we see when we look up.

Ridiculous

If this person is scientist, he/she wasn't there the day the taught the scientific method.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 63871965


I would like to see every part of the "scientific method"
disseminated according to my research. You do not refute
anything, yet attack my character about someone you know
nothing about. "Shill"....

There are not heavy metal particulates in the air in
high concentrations naturally. PLEASE find me any
study that can prove strontium and cadmium are in the
air at any natural levels, and then we will talk about WHO
disregards the "scientific process". Lol, bickles these days.
You dont even argue against anything, you just try and attack
people personally with no regard to content matter
whatsoever. Cant wait till hear that shill rebuttle.
Maybe youre not the physicist, so how would you know any
inkling of what happens in the scientific community?
This is a legitamate deal in universities and independant
air quality control companies. So keep shillin me out,
I dont care:) people who deserve the knowledge will
see it, others will and not do anything with it, so what
does it matter to me? Whats the real question is why do you
care so much about what people see in the sky in the
first place? Thats like the old Air Force shills trying to
be like, uh yeah we have seen ufos before but theyre not
alien. LOL!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70539575


The scientific method is not about refuting someone else's hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. We, as observers, do not have to refute anything. In this case, you have to show evidence for the claims that,

1. they are "chemtrails" and not contrails
2. material from these "chemtrais" are falling from the sky
3. the material falling from the sky is affecting groundwater, soil, etc.
4. the "chemtrails" are somehow doing something to people on the ground

Then there are several other questions that come up.

1. How much mass does it take to produce the white puffy things that you can "chemtrails" in the sky? Since they have certain optical properties you can start to assume parameters about them. The thickness has to be a few hundred meters. You can estimate width and length. I have done some simple calculations and if all the material is emitted from the plane, it exceeds the mass of the plane in about 100 km. This is less than the distance a plane flying at 30,000 feet flies horizon to horizon.
2. How about the dispersion rates of material left at that altitude? How does it spread?
3. What is the suspension time? How long does it take any chemicals to fall to the ground?
4. What is the target? You must know that something released directly overhead will not fall straight to the ground, especially. Where does it land?
5. What is being "sprayed"? How is it being "sprayed"? This are very important questions that no one seems to care about answering. All I have seen are doctored photos and cases of mistaken identity. Radio antennas or sampling nozzles being called "sprayers".
6. Who manufactures the stuff? Who manufactures the equipment needed? How does it get transported? How does it get loaded? These questions deal with the number of people who would have to be involved in the process.
7. Who pays for all this? That is a lot of money. Where does it come from?

If you are a physicist, is that you have to realize that no on accepts unverifiable data. We do not deal in pseudoscience. Claims have to be backed up by details about any techniques used and, if sampling, all safeguards used to prevent contamination. And others, even nonbelievers, have to be able to repeat your research and reach the same conclusion. Read any paper in any scientific journal, Nature, Science, Physical Review, Lancet, and hundreds of others journals. There is a set format that researchers follow and editors require. None of them resort to “believe my research or I will call you a name” type of tactics. They realize they have to convince others that they are correct.

You also need to provide a better explanation then the current explanation. If you are trying to invoke a paradigm shift, it takes extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. In this case you now have to show how your hypothesis is better than the statements about contrails. Aircraft contrails have been seen for almost 100 years. Meteor contrails go back centuries, and some of those have been described as persistent and spreading. Spreading and persistent contrails have been seen for 70 years. The science of contrail formation is 60 years old, the Appleman chart (1953).

Contrails have been acknowledged as a type of pollution. Contrails can change the weather, making it warmer at night and cooler in the day. Contrails are known to affect climate by changing the radiative forcing.

The Air Force goes to great lengths to avoid contrail formation, planes become easy targets if they leave a contrail, see Appleman again. Commercial aircraft fly the shortest routes with engines that use the least fuel. These tend to mean contrails get formed.

There have been hundreds of studies, explanations, mathematical models, ground tests, in situ measurements made. Why should that be abandoned because someone makes wild ass, unverified, and unverifiable claims?

Science is based on reason and logic. By letting emotion get in the way it clouds your vision. Step back and ask yourself the hard questions. If you can refute all the hard questions, then you might have something. A good researcher welcomes criticism. Einstein was the biggest critic of quantum mechanics. He asked questions only Einstein could ask. Even though he never personally accepted it, he help found the quantum revolution and made it stronger through his criticism.

The history of science is littered with too many people that have jumped the gun and made claims before they were verified. The story of Pons and Fleischman come to mine for one. Some are also too quick to desire a paradigm shift even though the claim is unsupported by evidence, Hoyle for example. Then others fail to embrace a paradigm shift, Wegener’s idea is one such example.

Learn the terminology. Conjecture, hypothesis, and theory are not the same. A conjecture is a guess, a hypothesis is a testable statement, and a theory is a well substantiated idea verified by experiment and mathematics. A theory makes predictions that have been independently verified.

Understand falsifiability. Any statement has to be worded so that some evidence can falsify the claim. The statement “There are plaid fish in Lake Michigan” is not falsifiable. You cannot sample every single location, hiding hole, inlet, or outlet simultaneously to falsify the claim. Lack of catching a plaid fish does not falsify the claim, there still could be plaid fish somewhere you haven’t looked. But the statement “No fish in Lake Michigan are plaid” is falsifiable. All it takes is one plaid fish and the statement has been rendered false.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP