It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And Then They Call Our Minds Closed

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
yes

when someone calls Nikola Tesla a nutcase

and when someone calls plasma/electric universe theory a crackpottery

I call these kind of people close minded








posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Fact or fiction has changed over and over in science over the centuries. Let the reader ponder what is fact or fiction. If people censored what they perceive as crazy talk then ideas would not become fact. Open minded doesn't mean gullible, it justs means humble acknowlegement that we don't know everything in this vast universe or multiverse as the scientists are now saying. And remember thinkers fear is the enemy of the mind.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


don huang, I can agree that Nikola Tesla was not a 'nutcase'.

Some guys named 'Edison' and 'Westinghouse' were just better at marketing themselves, at least as I understand the burgeoning field of that 'new-fangled' electricity, back in the day....

NO theory....wait, let me amend that....no theory that is supported by, at least, some verifiable evidence or solid math, should be dismissed out-of-hand.

A handy dose of skeptism is still good medicine....but true science will break through closed-minded dogmatism, eventually.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

The problem around here is nobody wants to establish their own standard of truth, most people simply co-opt someone else's.

If you're like me and can split hairs obsessively, you'll find that hardly anything can be truly be labeled "truth". It's all hand me down information. You have to draw the line somewhere "this is what I can accept, and this is what I cannot". But when you draw this line, draw it with logic and reason, not emotion and bias. This is the fundamental flaw in most people's reasoning. They build their standard of truth on a faulty foundation, then find themselves unable to adapt because doing so would unravel their perception of their world.

The bottom line is, don't cling to your notions as if it were a life preserver, because without reason and logic and objectivity, you could end up clutching a ball and chain instead.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Gigatron....I think this is what the OP has raised....and I am happy to see a lively discussion ensue!

Example....a hundred years, or so, no one knew what the Sun was. Some thought it was a giant burning lump of coal....or various twaddle...

Since, at the time, there was little to no understanding of molecules, and atomic interactions, and how Hydrogen could fuse into Helium and produce energy....well, you had no basis to explain to any prominent 'scientist' of the era. Science builds....knowledge builds....

I have a favorite analogy...if you could go back in time and show a modern jet to the Wright Brothers, it would be so out of context as to be thought completely incapaple of flight, by them in their era. Now imagine you found a long enough flat surfacxe to take-off, fly, and land to demonstrate, then they MIGHT be convinced.

BUT, ask them to build another, and the technology needed just doesn't exist yet!! It's too great a leap....many steps, in metallurgy, rubber, electronics, lubricants....just to name a few, just have not been developed yet!

So...the 'theory' would, in their minds, be seen to be sound. It is the execution of that concept that requires science and technology to accomplish a goal.....



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I'll add my own spin to your Wright Brothers analogy:

If their standard of truth was flexible enough, they could accept your fighter jet as real and viable. Even though it exceeds their knowledge and understanding, logic dictates it must be plausible since they are seeing it for themselves, reason dictates it must be real since obviously it exists and it functions, and objectivity dictates it's real since they can admit that it just might be possible that someone knows more than they do and is further along then they are. Though it defies their knowledge and understanfing, they can accept it because their standard of truth allows for them to adapt to new information.

Conversely, if their standard of truth were rigid and static, they would more likely think they were hallucinating, dreaming, or just plain insane. The sight of such a foreign object so beyond their comprehension would fill them with disbelief and skepticism, they would likely spend more time trying to figure out how it's impossible than trying to figure out how it could work. Bias would make them think it's impossible because they are so far ahead of the curve in their own minds that they couldn't accept that their genius is actually very rudimentary.

Many people around here fall into this latter category of thought, unfortunately, as evidenced by their rabid defense of their own genius and their militant evisceration of others rudimentary notions.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Well your right about the light of stars being light years away, but planets in our own galaxy are not light years away. The light from the sun takes about 4 minutes to reach earth so your theory is pretty much bunk. Anyways not having a go at you just wanted to point you in the right direction.


Eeeeeeeeeek ... sorry, have to
Of course Planets in our own galaxy are up to 10s of thousands of lightyears away. Planets in our own solar system aren't.

I think a lot of the confusion in the space exploration forum particulary comes from such "tiny" mistakes. Because they aren't tiny at all actually.

An Analogy:
A: "I got hit by a Cruise Missile yesterday in my yard."
B: "What?"
A: "Yap, the kid fell off it and was really startled"
B: "Huh?"
A: "Yeah, you know, one of those cruise missiles with 3 wheeles and pedals?"
B: "Thats a tricycle, thats not a cruise missile"
A: "What do you mean? they both move."

Or another example: there was a thread called "meteors headed this way from the sun" ... well... definitely not, you dont call them meteors when they are not busy breaking up in earths atmosphere.

Seriously... a little straight terminology and not just using whatever word comes to mind for "stuff up there" could avoid quite a bit confusion.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


debunky....funny story, that!!!

Thanks.

"planets tens of thousands light years away"???

Yeah, possibly. No, actually, true. Hundreds of extra-solar planets have already been discovered, more all the time. Not that they're 'Earth-like', at least not yet. AND, most far closer than 10,000 LY away....given that the entire Galaxy is about 100,000 LY in diameter.....and, since we seem to reside quite on the outskirts, in ONE spiral arm....we STILL see hundreds of stars in our vicinity that have planets. Odd star systems, compared to ours, but still....seems planets are the norm, not the exception.

My mind remains open to so many things....UNTIL I happen to see someone claim something that is contrary to what I have actually experienced.

No examples, not here....many can infer.

It's incumbent upon each of us to strive to learn, to read, and to attempt to understand each other.

Understanding is unlikely to come in a Forum such as this....that's why we interact, have Universities, and friends to communicate wirth and share (hopefully).



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Excellent analogy weedwhacker, however I disagree. I think we underestimate our forebears, and therefore underestimate our abilities. In your analogy I believe the Wright Brothers would be amazed at a modern jet fighter, but you would be over whelmed with questions to the point of exhaustion. I think they would grasp the concept of the propulsion, control and aerodynamic systems very quickly. In a matter of days. Of course you would have to fly it before they would believe you. Hell I wouldn't believe they could fly unless I had seen it.

In fact your intellect, and mine, is identical to that of a stone age man. If you took a stone age baby and transported it to the 21st century to be raised by modern parents in 15 years it would be indistinguishable from everybody else.

This is why I am not so shocked at historical artifacts that seem beyond their times. There is no reason why a good idea could not have occurred before but simply been overlooked.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
What is the speed of gravity?
I just read that if the sun disappeared that we would still see it for a little over 8 minutes. Would the Earth keep orbiting a non-existent star for 8 minutes though? Or would immediately go into a straight line trajectory?

This is gonna keep me up.


the speed of gravity is much faster than the speed of light. This can be deduced by observing gravitational lag. There is a slight delay between when an object is introduced to a gravitational field and when the force begins to act upon the object.

I'm going to guess that we'd slowly be released from our normal orbit for a few seconds and then after that mark, we'd be completely dislocated.


[edit on 2/17/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Heres an thought OP.

We still haven't a clue about why where here, what "space" is contained in, why photons act as they do when we observe them, the full capability of the human mind, what god is, why cultures since the beginning of recorded history all point to strange saucer shaped flying objects in the sky, why tribes and cultures separated by vast oceans who supposedly never met have scarily similar tales of creation, and about a thousand other mysteries yet to be solved.

The world is constantly changing and so are our perceptions of reality. Being close minded just cuts you off from amazing possibilities. Maybe believing in UFOs opens your mind to a new discovery entirely that changes your life for the better. Having a closed mind locks you in and you never get to change and evolve. For gods sake you would have been one of those people saying NO! The world is flat, have him killed for saying so!

We are on this earth to evolve spiritually and having a closed mind cuts you off. I hope one day you can overcome your fear getting something wrong and being ridiculed. Take some risks, think outside the box, the rewards have been amazing IMO.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
I really hate the "skeptics vs conspiracy theorists" theme that I always hear about.


I agree. I don't think there is such a thing. People run the gamut as to their beliefs and, speaking for myself, depending on the issue, I am a believer or a skeptic. There are definitely things that I believe in without proof. But in those cases, I have seen enough evidence and it might "feel" right and so I believe.

The difference is that I don't insist anyone else believe it, too, or else be subject to personal attacks of character.


I don't care what people believe about 9/11 (I don't buy the official story)
I don't care what people believe about religion (I'm atheist)
I don't care what people believe about Obama (I support him)
I don't care what people believe about reptilians (I don't believe in them)
I don't care what people believe about life after death (I believe in it)
I don't care what people believe about vampires (I don't buy it)

But before I believed in ANY of these things, I was (and remain) skeptical. I just don't criticize religious, mythological beast, or other "believers" for their beliefs. Nor do I come down on those for not believing (as I do) in life after death or supporting Obama.

So, the chasm I notice exists NOT between skeptics and believers of any flavor, but those who ACCEPT others' points of view and those who don't.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Great thread Astyanax!!

It is important to not forget that a part of denying ignorance is scepticism not only towards the "system" etc but towards the theories as well.


Originally posted by Tiloke

What is the speed of gravity?
I just read that if the sun disappeared that we would still see it for a little over 8 minutes. Would the Earth keep orbiting a non-existent star for 8 minutes though? Or would immediately go into a straight line trajectory?

This is gonna keep me up.



[edit on 16-2-2009 by Tiloke]



The speed of gravity is the speed of light. (according to Einstein)
So yes the earth would keep orbiting a "non" existent star for 8 minutes.

The real answer is actually that the sun would exist for us 8 minutes longer than it would at its location.

It is a really good question anyways since it is one of the main problems with todays quantum physics not fitting in the macro physics laws.

According to "older" physics models gravity has no speed. But according to quantum physics nothing can move faster then light.

When einstein saw this problem he created an explanation about how gravity influnce the room dimension and that gravity who stop existing will create a wave in the room dimension moving at the speed of light. This is also closely related to string theory that make quantum physics laws fit with macro physics laws.

Sorry for beeing OT

Deny Ignorance

Zykloner



[edit on 17-2-2009 by Zykloner]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

Umm...how is it that it takes eight minutes for light to reach us from the sun, but light from Jupiter reaches us in 3 seconds? As Kevin Spacey so eloquently stated in Superman, WROOOOOOOOOONG!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zykloner, help me here....didn't Einstein's General Theory of Relativity postulate that mass "warps" space? mass = gravity, therefore, just existing (or NOT as our thought experiment continues) might be instantaneous.....

Your discussion included the possiblity of string theory as well....which leads to membrane (or 'brane' theory...two dimensions rather than one 'string')....makes my brain hurt! But, good to get insight from others.

Going beyond Einstein, this is.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
It is therefore impossible to be both a sceptic and a belligerent zealot. You are clearly misinterpreting your experience. You are also displaying the typical Believer reaction of galloping into the fray on your hobbyhorse without first checking to see whether such a reaction is appropriate. Not really so clever, then.


Obviously you missed or misinterpreted the point of my post. In a nutshell, Science is not nearly as open-minded as it pretends, and Spirituality is not nearly as closed-minded as the skeptics would have you believe.

You profess to be a skeptic. However, you display abrasive and inflexible and insulting behavior toward those who post even an impartial observation. If this does not make you a zealot, then it indicates that you have some pretty severe personality disorders, at least. Please forgive me for violating your space — I wouldn't want to be responsible for finally pushing you over the edge.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
You profess to be a skeptic. However, you display abrasive and inflexible and insulting behavior toward those who post even an impartial observation.

I'll accept abrasive, take a raincheck on inflexible and pass on the insulting. But I think the word you are struggling for is 'insolent'.

Your post was hardly impartial, was it? I pity any proponents of 'global warming' or critics of the Catholic Church who read that.


If this does not make you a zealot, then it indicates that you have some pretty severe personality disorders, at least. Please forgive me for violating your space — I wouldn't want to be responsible for finally pushing you over the edge.

Nice one.


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zykloner, help me here....didn't Einstein's General Theory of Relativity postulate that mass "warps" space? mass = gravity, therefore, just existing (or NOT as our thought experiment continues) might be instantaneous.....



Mass warps space yes. That is what cause gravity to move at the speed of light. If you imagine the earth going around the sun, the warping of space around the sun makes the earth go in orbit. Imagine a trampoline with a real heavy ball in the center(sun), then if you add a lighter ball(earth) to the trampoline it will roll towards the heavy ball. If the light ball has any speed it will roll round and round the heavy ball. In this analogy the trampoline represents space. If you remove the heavy ball the "normalizing" of space moving outwards from that location will (not on a trampoline) cause a "wave" that travels the speed of light. Einstein actually thought that not only will it go into straight trajectory, but possibly get slinged outward because of the wave in space.

Hope it made any sense.

If interested i can create a thread on the subject.

Zykloner



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
this forum is filled with funny stories that can be relaxing when you don't have anything better to do. i mostly ignore them.
if there were any true evidence for anything posted here then it wouldn't need to be "exposed" on ATS because it would be a proven fact. then again there are people who love to believe in flying pigs...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zyk, I'm quite familiar with the rubber sheet with the heavy ball in the middle, and a smaller ball orbiting analogy...problem is, this explains three-dimensional objects operating in a (sort-of) two-dimensional theme.

(and, ignoring the fact that this model includes friction, with the small ball...AND, we are demonstrating on Earth, not in space.......it is a method to demonstrate, but not completely explain, how gravity may work...)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join