[tinwhiskers] FW: Re: The compliance with EU materials dictates and the precautionary principal
- From: "Dr Mark Vaughan" <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:53:59 +0100
Hi Rod
I accept that I am totally incompetent when it comes to this field, and at
present I don't have the time to study it either
But I also don't always trust those that claim they are competent.
There are top research fields in universities with their associated
professors. In many cases students are taught for many years understanding
some, and accepting the rest whether it is right or wrong. Then some of them
go on to teach continuing with some of these errors, and after a while the
theory grows and everyone accepts that philosophy as correct.
Quite a few years ago, I ventured down an electro-magnetics research avenue
attempting to take the work of other scientists further, using documentation
supplied by various professors as my basis. These documents and publications
were accepted as the standard by thousands of engineers and students
worldwide. My experimental results were however very different, but being
the understudy I continued attempting to get the documented result and
failed. After many months a friend of the financier at a well known US
university offered to run the same tests, so we sent them the test rig and
they came up with the same results as I. So I finally plucked up the courage
to phone the professor and ask why. The professors answer was that he'd
never done the experiment, that was what he thought would happen, but my
result made good sense too.
Since then I've had similar experiences in other fields which I was again
unqualified in when I started but after a while proved major studies to be
grossly in error. Many of these were simple things that many college
students should have questioned and never did, or were afraid to.
With that experience you then start to have a false sense of security in any
published document, and if you get a statistician in there which is often
the case, then confidence is totally gone. This leaves me whilst still being
unqualified and incompetent in this particular field to wonder how many
assumptions here are based on unproven philosophies to no one dared to stand
up and question.
We also haven't considered the finance aspect, for when a research scientist
fails to get an interesting result, their finance ends. In many cases this
must cause some to stray from the truth. Just think about our environmental
issues, if you are an environmental scientist and prophesise the failure of
the planet and global warming you get lots of research money, but if you
question that, and there are big questions, you get nothing. Tends to make
many sciences very one sided.
Now consider if your science is all philosophy and theory with issues that
you thought would take hundreds of years to prove or have consequence, but
you needed to keep the wife and kids with a roof over their head!
Perhaps Cern are correct, perhaps not. Since you seem to be more informed on
this than I, then I hope you are correct. But sadly in many cases I myself
cannot 100% trust anything a scientist of doctor tells me.
That's the end of my discussion on it, it has now drifted off topic so I'll
try to stay out of it.
Regs Mark
Dr. Mark Vaughan Ph'D., B.Eng. M0VAU
Managing Director
Vaughan Industries Ltd., reg in UK no 2561068
Water Care Technology Ltd, reg in UK no 4129351
Addr Unit3, Sydney House, Blackwater, Truro, Cornwall, TR4 8HH UK.
Phone/Fax 44 (0) 1872 561288
RSGB DRM111 (Cornwall)
-----Original Message-----
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod
Sent: 23 June 2009 19:34
To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: The compliance with EU materials dictates and the
precautionary principal
On 23 Jun 2009, at 19:06, John Burke wrote:
> In effect the result is a complete unknown as there is no math in
> the world
> that you can run the numbers on without making all of the
> assumptions about
> the outcome of the experiment - and if the outcome does not fit the
> math it
> will be ways too late to go back over the numbers.
>
> Like I said originally - what happened to the precautionary principal?
You sound like one of those who advised Columbus not to risk falling
off the edge of the (flat) world. Come to think of it, if the same
had been said of the wheel, we might have saved millions of deaths on
the highways.
You do not need mathematical analysis. Every day there are countless
cosmic rays striking the earth, which are far more powerful than the
LHC. What the LHC brings is control, and number of similar events, so
that they can be measured accurately. If powerful impacts caused
black holes, we would have seen them over and over.
There have been legal challenges to the operation of the LHC, which
has been assessed and dismissed in courts.
As I wrote: This discussion is off-topic, straying into areas in
which you may not be competent, and threatens to undermine the
credibility of the main tin-whiskers issue, in which I believe strongly.
regards, Rod (FInstP)
rod.dalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
