We shouldn't rule out anything before we make proper research about certain topics.

We shouldn't rule out anything before we make proper research about certain topics.

Don't rule out or close something out without evidence. This is the golden rule about scientific work. And don't blame any writer, if somebody else has given wrong data. When we are living in the world, where people have unlimited access to the data, what is not classified "secret", that means there is more data in use than ever before.

So if somebody would make bad studies, that means that the writer, who uses that material is not responsible for false or bad information, what bases on the studies, what are published in some other trusted media. When we are talking about things like scientific work, we are facing things like "some student" has been writing an open letter about some other things. When we are starting to create arguments against those texts. We can always say, that they are made by students or send them to the mental hospital.

Even Einstein and Newton were students once

And in that time we forget that every great researcher like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were students once. When we are trying to analyze the texts, we should concentrate on the product, not the producer. Who cares is some physics theory made by a schizophrenic or person who uses too much alcohol? We must realize that the text, what is written in the thing, what we should estimate. We should not underestimate old masters, but we must realize that modern technology like CCD-cameras and especially supercomputers. The supercomputers can handle numbers with an accuracy of millions of decimal numbers are showing that there are found errors or inaccuracies in the many theories.

The thing is that students are many times really intelligent people. Researches and studies are many times underrated because some students are made those texts. The thing is that research and studies do not always support things that we are learning to believe in schools. And if those researches are not supporting our ideology, we can always turn to refuse to believe them. Science and studies are not democracy. There are no Gallup polls, which are chancing the observations. But otherwise without observations, what made by using trusted equipment, and confirmed by independent groups is not prove. And theories are remaining theories until the observations are falling or prove that thing.

But the problem is that we are facing the thing sometimes only half of the text is handled. When some people are publishing texts what are made by students they are taking the attitude that the text should support their view of the world. That means that they are forgetting the purpose of science and research. The purpose of the research is to bring new data and points of view to the world. The facts or how the facts are taken are things that are making research qualified or not qualified.

The small fact can uncover a huge secret.

The thing is that if we want to make some studies, we should not justify things before we have been searching for the source material. And things like AREA-51 have been shown that careful secrets are opening the secrets, what are guarding the highest class officials. The thing that uncovered the AREA-51 was the thing that there was land, which the government eminently domain twice. And this thing was shown, that there are always people who are telling things, what is not true.

When we are thinking about things like gifting reporters about the freedom of speech, I sometimes wonder the prices affect the freedom of speech? Are they gifts that are given for real and effective journalism, or are they "good boy" and "good girl" gifts, what are given for supporting governments and some other companies? What are the instructions for sharing that kind of money? Are they given for denigrating the competitors, but leaving some actors away from the articles?

The thing is that when we are thinking about things like the laws of nature, we do not always remember that the calculation methods are improving. And there have been found the inaccuracies in many theories and things that are thought to be natural laws.

When robots are laughing and crying.

When robots are laughing and crying. Does the AI have feelings? Does the AI have feelings? Or can it be emphatic? The fact is this program code that controls the AI determines if it can give empathic reactions. The problem with the human nervous system is that we don't make a difference in the writing of empathic letters or telling empathic stories human or AI. Our nervous system is not adapted to AI yet. And that's why we cannot separate text written by AI from text that made by humans. What does somebody make with AI that can emulate feelings? The fact is that the cyborgs are useful tools for infiltration operations. The human-size robots can have WLAN/6G connections with the central computers. Or they can form a neural network that shares information between all group members. The robots can also act as walking neural network-based supercomputers. That can make complicated solutions. In those networks, each member shares information and their data-handling capacity all o

Earth 2.0 has been caused discussion about the possibility to find another civilization

Earth 2.0 has been caused discussion about the possibility to find another civilization The Earth 2.0 or officially Kepler-452b is locating extreme log distance from Earth(1). A new Earth-type planet has been found near the star, which is similar to our own Sun. The journey to that planet would take 1400 years, even if the spacecraft will reach the speed of the light. The planet has been found in the year 2008, but the confirmation of the existence of that planet has been taken time, but in 2015 the confirmation has been got, and Earth 2.0 has turned true. The mass of that planet is 1,9 times Earth and the temperature is excellent if we are thinking about liquid water, but the journey to that planet will take so long, that we cannot ever go in there by using regular rockets and technology. The thing is that this kind of planets are the most interesting if we are looking for the lifeforms, which are similar to us, and the problem with that kind of things is that the communicatio

Tunguska meteorite and the natural nuclear fission

Image I Tunguska meteorite and the natural nuclear fission 1) Tunguska UFO-theory Tunguska meteorite is the mystery, that has been solved once, but then the case has been open again because Lake Cheko was not suitable for an impact crater. That lake has been introducing as an impact crater of the Tunguska meteorite. But the problem is that the shape of that lake is like a swimming pool. And that means it cannot form by a meteorite. So the mystery remains. Meteorites can launch the natural nuclear fission if they hit the uranium ore, and transfer the impact energy to that ore. And is the thing that the famous "Tunguska" meteorite caused that kind of effect? There is also a theory that some "UFO" explode in that area, but the thing is that it is only theory, but interesting topics for some TV-series. So I will begin this text by handling that theory, which is one of the incredible and outstanding theories in the world. Officially there is no physical evidence of

The networked Internet connects the world under one umbrella.

Search This Blog