Hi Petra. There are those who are truly searching for a scientific way to predict earthquakes for the benefit of all mankind and use methods that can be repeated and verified by the scientific method. All work is submitted for peer review. The problem with the peer review is that if one of two of them thinks just the opposite of you you haven’t got a snowballs chance in Hell of getting it accepted. The dog at the type of the heap keeps you from climbing that lofty perch.

Scientist tends to reject things they neither believe, or don’t understand. If it can’t be put into a tight little box it’s rejected. Some scientist, not all will reject something if they are working on the same thing, but fear you might get the answer before they do. To some it’s a prestige thing. Then there is getting money to continue the research they are doing. For some it’s just about next to impossible to get that money. For the most part it never seems to be a case of how important the research may or may not be, but how the request for money is made.

I have often wondered what would happen if scientist left their egos at the door and sat down at a round table and put all of their ideas on the table with one goal in mind. “Kelly’s Skunk Works” is a good example of that. Take Care…Don in creepy town