Submitted By David C: Fill & Download for Free

David Esker believes that, when Dinosaurs lived, Earth’s air was so thick that its density would be comparable to water. This, he claims, explains the overall size and shape of dinosaurs.[1]Outsider scienceThere’s an important larger issue here: how to evaluate outsider science? There are some very bright nonspecialists who have devised interesting and new scientific ideas that aren’t accepted by the scientific community. These people are typically either not scientists at all or are experts in some discipline that isn’t related to their new theory.The classic example is Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist who published a theory about geology called continental drift. He claimed that South America and Africa were once close together. He wasn’t a geologist and experts in that field rejected his ideas for a long time.[2] [3]Other outsiders haven’t been as successful. Linus Pauling was probably the greatest chemist of the 20th Century, supposedly as smart as Einstein. But his theories about nutrition and Vitamin C have never been accepted by scientific nutritionists. This picture nicely illustrates both his genius and his advocacy for a crackpot idea.[4]So, is David Esker an unrecognized genius or a crackpot?I use Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic web sites to find articles published in the scientific literature. That’s important because articles there are mostly been checked by other experts before they are published. That’s called peer review.I can’t find any peer-reviewed articles by David Esker or articles citing his findings. Either he hasn’t submitted his work to be looked at by experts or else experts don’t think his ideas are worth considering.A few geologists think that the Earth’s atmosphere might have been denser in that era, though not as dense as Esker claims.[5]Why most outsider science is worthless:Understanding nature, the world around us, is really hard. Scientists usually struggle to make small advances. Big new ideas hardly ever come about in one big step; the more common pattern is for good ideas to develop gradually as new data arrives. Theories are typically based on large amounts of data and complex logical arguments. It isn’t good enough to be 99.9% right. If any one detail is wrong, the entire argument could lead to the wrong conclusion.So, somebody, like Eskers, could present an argument that’s mostly right but leads to an entirely wrong conclusion.Good science comes from a community more than from individual scientists. That community may reject good new ideas but the scientists proposing them can usually present their ideas and findings to other scientists. If the idea has any value at all, there will be at least a few scientists who advocate the ideas and look for data that will test those ideas. That’s what happened with the theory of continental drift.[6] If Esker’s ideas, or those of other outsiders, have any merit there will be people who will look into the issue.Footnotes[1] Home Page[2] Alfred Wegener - Wikipedia[3] Continental drift - Wikipedia[4] Israel Ramirez's answer to Has there been any research published on the psychology of science cranks and crackpots, and if so, what diagnoses are most associated with them?[5] Earth's atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs[6] Continental drift - Wikipedia

Yes, your parents should complete the online application for financial aid called FAFSA. See http://studentaid.gov for information. To emphasize the point noted by David C. Maness , FAFSA is not aid itself, but an application for financial aid.

In the 1960s, a Yale University student submitted an idea for a business startup plan as part of a class project. His professor was less than impressed writing on the paper."The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible."The student was Fred Smith, and his idea was a business plan for a reliable overnight delivery service.Smith went on to found Federal Express.