I couldn't agree more - real scientists are national treasures, and we depend on them in so many ways, especially those in the field of medicine.
Interesting....I take it YOU decide which scientists are "Real"? Is this based on Education, research or field? In this case perhaps who they work for(NASA)?
In a way I do - real scientists provide tangible benefits for mankind, not pointless and inchoate speculations.
Do you benefit from Cancer research, how about Solar panel efficiency? You may not be aware of this, but there are humans on Earth other than you. It is also extremely clear that your understanding of science and its tenants make you particularly unqualified to evaluate.
You're confusing real scientists with fake ones - like I said, real ones provide tangible benefits for mankind, such as er, research into serious illnesses and inventing solar panel technology. Jeeeezus how many other ways are there for me to explain it!
You need not explain your position further as it is abundantly clear, as is the rational thought behind it.
Your opinion of theoretical science is sufficient reason to summarily dismiss your narrow minded view.
you use type 1a supernova to measure redshift. Its extremely accurate. In a binary star system one white dwarf and the other @ 1.4 solar masses and boom...everytime. Its a control measurement.
You mean the type of supernova that occurs in binary systems (two stars orbiting one another) in which one of the stars is a white dwarf. The other star can be anything from a giant star to an even smaller white dwarf? Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand.
Honestly the stuff you can learn from Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova Is it where you found it, AO?
Why is it that you debase scientists but embrace the WIKI that uses what they produce? Is it that the folks creating WIKI are not the scientists?
No its no wonder at all. Reading stuff written by intelligent people makes you smarter as we have just demonstrated.
you are free to submit your scientific paper to the forum demonstrating that the 1a science is flawed. Ill read it. Ive read theirs and follow the science, that doesnt make me gullible it makes me more informed. But please feel free to enlighten us with new found science. Thats always refreshing.
Herein lies the core of your disturbance....what you do not seem to understand is that most people actually DO additional research before accepting base data. We don't just read a WIKI article and cut/paste it in amazement of its content. We actually understand the concepts behind scientific discovery that it makes sense in context. You seem so intent on dismissing data as a fraud that you become incapable of learning from it and remain in a fog of ignorant denial...it makes you the definition of a fool.
