Scientific Jargon
-
by Kitharode moderator
Sorry science team - I just couldn't resist. ** 😃 **
Posted
-
by p.titchin in response to Kitharode's comment.
my gut feeling is -- 'can't explain this, but this tiny idea i've had is cool, and can run untill a spoilsport comes up with a proper fact supported theory.
Couldn't resist either-- this could run!~Pete
Posted
-
by angi60 in response to Kitharode's comment.
It has been observed that - Someone saw something.
There was no direct observation - No-one saw anything.
Definitive evidence is lacking - Someone saw something but forgot to record it.It is reasonable to assume - This is what I think, so you'd better believe it.
The Science goals of the Project are.. - This is what we're being paid to do.
In order to fully understand these processes - We haven't got a clue yet.
We found strong indications - There was a tiny scrap of evidence.Oh dear, this is addictive!! (Disclaimer - It is intended that no Scientists will be harmed by reading this. Any resemblance to actual Scientific Papers, current or past is entirely co-incidental.) 😮
Posted
-
by Kitharode moderator in response to angi60's comment.
Brilliant angi60!! That's got me giggling good and proper. I vote we make the 'Disclaimer' official and use lots of smileys. 😉
Based on the aforementioned assumptions, one possible explanation might be... - Your guess is as good as ours here.
On closer inspection of the data... - The professor found her spectacles. ** 😛 **
Posted
-
by Kitharode moderator
This new approach greatly increases the signal to noise ratio... - We turned the telly off.
A Fourier transgressional coefficient of Chi algorithm removes background noise... - We rubbed out the bits we didn't like.
Blank areas on the map are data loss from the HiRise camera... - We can't find the CD with those bits on it. 😉
Posted
-
by angi60 in response to Kitharode's comment.
Glad I made you giggle - hope you didn't fall off your chair 😃 Your post appealed to my mischievous (and daft) sense of humour, so I couldn't resist adding more. Your's are better though - I like the new ones. I just hope the Scientists are still speaking to you :-X A Fourier transgressional what?!! Sounds painful! I'll try to resist adding more, but temptation might get the better of me.....
Posted
-
by Kitharode moderator in response to angi60's comment.
The Fourier thingy isn't real, as far as I know. Just made it up. 😉
The Boards are ours, not mine, so add what you want. Besides, what good is temptation if we don't occasionally give in to it?
I've got a feeling Pete might come up with a couple of goodies. Hope so, then he can share the wrath of the science team. 😃
Posted
-
by p.titchin in response to Kitharode's comment.
OK Kith,I'll join the ranks of the culpable.
If we assume that --- I have no peers in my field, so no one can challenge this
marginally significant--- It took the team a year to find a statistical test that showed the slightest significance.
anther interesting component is..--No, we can't make this fit in with our theory. 😃
Posted
-
by angi60
Haha - glad you've joined in Pete. That makes three of us in trouble with the Scientists now 😛
Kitharode - Aww - the Fourier transgressional coefficient sounded so plausible. I'm disappointed now 😦 You could throw that into conversations to impress people!! That's a good point about temptation - I haven't succumbed today, but I'm sure my mischievous sense of humour won't be able to resist for long - haha.
Posted