Planet Four Talk

Scientific Jargon

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    enter image description here

    Sorry science team - I just couldn't resist. ** 😃 **

    Posted

  • p.titchin 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

  • angi60 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

  • Kitharode 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

  • Kitharode 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

  • angi60 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

  • Kitharode 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

  • p.titchin 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

  • angi60 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