It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

I'm curious on how even a single G let alone bone crushing G force would interact on a person inside of an anti-gravity based space vehicle.

I would assume nothing at all. Without even mentioning any real alien U.F.O. could just as well be controlled by an artificial pilot.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

another film

to compare the 2

Nick Mariana UFO Footage - 1950 - Great Falls, Montana

very interesting stuff

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by JudgeSawyer
reply to post by mnemeth1

I'm still a bit perplexed by this link to cosmology and basic geology. I have a bachelors in geochemistry, and I never ran into anyone who was completely sure of Earth's very early history. I think I understand where you're coming from with some of it, but not all by any means. The accretionary formation of the planet, coming together from bits of rotating matter, has never been a sure thing in geology. No professor I've ever had taught this as an absolute, so I've always considered it a gray area. Formation of oceans, sure; it seems unlikely to me all that water came from comets as well, but the time scales of geology are not comprehensible to human life-span. Therefore, I don't know. However, you talk about "the ancient history of the Earth" as if this is all there is in the geological sciences. It is a discipline which has been around for far longer than any cosmological theories that would even be recognizable today. There were rock classifications, glacial studies, metallurgy, meteorological observations, oceanic current observations, you name it, before there was even alchemy, let alone chemistry as we perceive it. I don't quite see what this has to do with cosmology, which begs the question: do you consider geology a science, or some bastardization through the prism of human consciousness? I just don't get it. Not attacking you, but curious about your explanation. Theories are theories. You've got yours, I've got mine.

Well, you're basically making my point for me in your own statement.

The geological history of the earth is interpreted through the lens of cosmology.

Its laudable that you don't believe everything the cosmologists tell you outright; however, if you pick up any child's text book, this stuff is taught as gospel.

Children are never taught that these theories are widely disputed and may be wrong.

Alternatives viewpoints of geological history are never - ever- taught. Children are not allowed to compare theories and decide for themselves which theory makes more sense. They are given ONE theory and told it is the most correct theory, even though it may be blatantly wrong.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

You may be well educated and understand that the geologic history may be a load of nonsense, but this is not what people are taught.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:04 PM
I've got to say something on this.

I'm just a an average Joe without any knowledge about physics, cosmology or anything what so ever. Just some curiosity and a lot reading keep me keep me hooked on these subjects.

So my first introductions to anything on this was by watching Discovery, national geographic and documentaries.

It is absolutely know lie at all that subjects in this thread where there is agreed on they are in fact just a theory.

These same subjects are presented on main stream TV and media as absolute truth. I can't even remember a doc. about space not mentioning the big bang, dark matter and so on.
They start with it, explain things with it and build new on it...

It's rarely ever mentioned that they do not no for sure let alone give some insight to alternative theories.

I could say this is at least some sort of a lie. To keep us from parts of the whole which are not chosen to be favourable.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by Phage

Phage falls into the error of technological infinite regress as per Professor H.M. Collins.

Thanks again Phage for providing confirmation of the bollocks of science.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by JudgeSawyer
I'm slightly surprised no one has commented on the OP's criticism of plate tectonics. ..snip..
Ocean floor is created at mid-ocean ridges, ..snip..
So, yes, the ocean floors are being added to the Earth from within, then swallowed at continental margins, preserving the size and mass balance of the planet. That IS plate tectonic theory, so do you agree or not? It does not have anything to do with centripetal force really. It's simple density differences. I think the question is what causes the mid-ocean ridges to open up in the first place.


Both Oceans are expanding.
The added sea floor is not being swallowed up at the continental margin.

"When the Atlantic Midocean Ridge was found to be creating (propagating) new ocean seafloor and increasing the distance between Europe/Africa and the Americas, scientists realized this could mean the Earth might be increasing in diameter because the Atlantic basin was obviously increasing in width. "

The author is indebted to Professor Gerhard Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany, for his adverse criticisms. The evidence he offered made it clear WHY he, and other scientists around the world, mistakenly believe in subduction. Examination of his evidence revealed technical flaws and misleading results because the measurements are based on arithmetical calculations using false basic assumptions. "

There is a lengthy explanation on the pages on this site:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Do you see what I'm getting at?

You may be well educated and understand that the geologic history may be a load of nonsense, but this is not what people are taught.

This is usually due to the teachers themselves not having a very good grasp of Geology, in grade schools (I think that's what you call them), where they are expected to teach a wide range of fact, there is very little Geology in the teaching curriculum until one chooses to take it at a tertiary institution.

It is an observational science primarily and is not set in stone (lol) but is evolving as our understanding increases.

I trust geologists more than I trust you and I'm not afraid to say so. Mainly because I work with them every day and observe their processes, listen to them in the tea room, and undertake field work with them.

You may say I'm already tainted, but from my observations of how they conduct their research I will have to say that so far, they are on the money!

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Wolfenz

I'm curious on how even a single G let alone bone crushing G force would interact on a person inside of an anti-gravity based space vehicle.

I would assume nothing at all. Without even mentioning any real alien U.F.O. could just as well be controlled by an artificial pilot.

the best structural movie based theory is the movie called ==Contact== ! where jody foster is in a sphere dropped(through 3 directional magnetic gyro effect rings ) while in the chair the chair is shaking violently then chair break apart the chair sticks to the wall and she is like floating then theres no vibration at all as the original blueprint design in the movie did not have a chair

= continued where i left off
this also reminds me of the famous painting in a old 14th >? century church Visoki Decani Monestary in Kosovo, Yugoslavia

the first 3 picture here that i am talking about on this site ( note i do not see any chair either) in the painting of the 2 human figures in the craft sphere

this is what i can think of so far as i have to go work LOL laters Ill be back note = back now from work

edited to continue where i left off was late fro work LOL, and the grammar spelling biz

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Wolfenz]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:18 PM
Im trying to wrap my mind around the Infinite universe being claimed here while at the same time placing earth or our galaxy at somewhere near the middle.

Illustration: A person has an infinite amount of oranges and his buddy asks for some. The person says sure ill give you every other orange i have. The person gives the buddy every other orange so now the both have an infinite amount of oranges.


A person has an infinite amount of ornages and his buddy asks for some. The person says sure ill give you every orange over 100. The person gives him every orange over 100 so now the person has 100 oranges and the buddy has an infinite amount of oranges.

Also if the universe is infinite is it not also true that in an infinite universe there would be an infinite amount of milky way type galaxies and earth type planets in each and an infinite amount of myself typing this very question?

Maybe im missing something.

PS I do agree with alot of the op but maybe for different reasons.

Edit to add how when speaking of infinity how could there be anything in the "middle" of it regarding earth. Wouldnt this be more along the lines of the Anthropic principal witch does not require an infinite universe?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by SiKFury]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by SiKFury

Why do you suggest infinite means there should be more then one copies of you ?
As soon as an exact copy of you shows up the universe is no longer infinite but circular... It's all about infinite variables right. How could you become another result from different variables. I would assume if the same exact variables are again making you.It's no longer infinite but it's in a loop.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by SiKFury

This is set theory -- -- the same "starting with 100" paradox is discussed by Cantor. He proved that real numbers are a larger infinity but not countable -- not contained within a set.

Due to this paradox of the empty set Bertrand Russell declared that the real numbers -- including the Pythagorean Theorem square root of two!! -- is a "convenient fiction."

This paradox was considered not valid due to, again, the logic of computer iterations. The Turing Machine is an updated version of Cantor's diagonal theorem -- but outside of this empty set paradox. Only it makes the machines in control!!

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:56 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Well in an infinitely large universe were its only a matter of time or space that the same variables come together in the exact same way at the exact same time. I dont see how that would create the loop as there could be an infinite amount of exact same things happening at the exact same time.

Infinity has had plenty of threads on ats and is still in large debate as a whole. IMO if infinity does exist its outside of this universe witch require space/time to be coherent.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by drew hempel

Id just add that set theories has its own set of paradoxes not to say set theory isnt a usefull tool in trying to deduce the validity of the idea of infinite quantities or sets however its not the only one that tries but ends up falling on thier own set of paradoxes.

The illustrations used were not used to hammer on a deep thought by any means but more to understand at least in 1,2,3,4,5 addition and subtraction cannot account for it.

I think electric/plasma universe models do offer alot but believe its supporters fall into the same trap as mainstream scientist.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by SiKFury

Yes I've read your explanation before.

But I can't grasp the idea that the infinite would allow itself to a finite result.

How is this infinite ?
I know they say infinite possibilities means infinitely the same results.
But the beauty of infinity is that it is large enough for not repeating itself.

An infinite universe has IMO nothing to do with any individual. It just goes on and on forever.

Unless you're in a holographic universe. But even then they do not seem to talk about infinite individual copies but infinite copies of reality. From Macro to quantum and beyond.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

And why would gravity vary? This relates to much of what you have already said. I wouldn't make fun of you even if you were on the wrong track...keep thinking with clarity.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Would not time and space become irrelevant when trying to force infinity into a place called our universe?

And while it would be beautiful that the universe is big enough not to repeat itself theres nothing to stop it from doing so. If true would it not make it just as likely that it does at some point repeat the exact same process as it would to not repeat that process.

Maybe it sounds like im repeating myself meaning that im not grasping something bigger or that infinity is more of a concept than a reality.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by SiKFury]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:22 PM
This info was really down to the point. It show that we should not believe anyone in regards to Science.

How the world began will always be a mystery to man. They can theorise how much they want. Only God knows as he is the creator. In knowledge we are smaller than a quark in comparison to the knowledge of God. We should praise him for giving us life.

God says in the bible, i created the foundations of the Earth, and they will remain till the end of the world.

There is no evolution. The plants and animals that were created from the beginning have always been as they are. No fossil has eve shown evolution of species. A mosquito from today looks exactly like the mosquito from 4000 years ago. And if we evolved from monkeys, why aren't todays bloody monkeys getting any smarter. To be like us they would have gone and had a wax for goodness sake.

Oh you scientists, you just make up dates as you please, just because you can't work things out. What you need to know is that there is only one truth out there. You should have worked it out from all the things you see around you everyday, every year. Ignorance or lower than normal IQ is i think responsible for this.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by SiKFury

Maybe it really depends from the point view you have.
To me infinite possibilities mean no repeating, why should it if the it does not have to.

Infinity fits perfectly fine in the universe IMO.
Universe is just a word we use to give all and everything we know a box. So you can say I'm talking universe here. Infinity in a nutshell

Edit space not and time is possibly only a tool for us to understand reality.
For everything else it could be completely irrelevant.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by byblos86

Please go preach somewhere else ? I"ll come and listen but on a time of my choosing.
Sunday around say 10 in the morning sounds ok.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

A page long diatribe doesn't change the fact that LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves, which is in direct contradiction to what was predicted.

I actually addressed that point directly, and I almost half-hoped that you'd at least attempt to engage those points. Though it seems you didn't bother to read or intend to respond to anything beyond identifying some place in which to justify your canned assertions of "Hur hur LIGO FAIL, hur hur".

The LIGO never would have been built if scientists weren't convinced that gravitational waves existed and the LIGO could detect them.

Again, experiments aren't preformed to provide some kind of after-thought redundancy for hypothesis only preformed after the certainty of confirmation is pre-established. The vast majority of experiments fail to varying degrees, produce insufficient data or have poorly defined parameters, are invalid due to some menial procedural oversight (such as not establishing proper controls), and on occasion turn up results that weren't expected. The data generated is more important than the hypothesis.

LIGO wouldn't have been initiated if there wasn't evidence to suggest that gravitons might, or should exist. The existence of the graviton was not, nor ever has been, promoted as anything other than a hypothetical which had not been observed. That's the point of LIGO... to try to search for their existence and provide the necessary observation to confirm it's existence if it does. It was a gamble, and if it does end up discovering gravitons at some point in the future, the potential gains far outstrip the investment costs.

These expenditures on successes and failures in fundamental research initiatives are the drivers of the future world economies. Consider how much investment has gone into early genomic research initiatives that didn't pan out, failed, or proved inconclusive. From those successes and failures, we've generated an understanding of the genome which even in these early stages has generated more in increased GPD than all of the funding spent to get to this point... and the skies the limit. The HGP alone cost three billion dollars in funding, and even the Celera Genomics private initiative cost more than LIGO's startup budget.

Which, by the way, I should correct you on another baseless assertion...

Scientists wasted an epic amount of tax payer dollars

Epic? Epic? Do you even know how much it cost, or have a frame of reference to compare it to? It's only epic if you personally had to pay for the whole thing out of pocket.

- LIGO's cost for construction: $272 Million Dollars.

- LIGO's total operating budget from 2002 ~ 2006: $175.5 Million Dollars.

Millions... and to provide some context;

- The Human Genome Project was originally estimated to cost 3 Billion Dollars in public funding. Celera Genomics provided a private solution for a tenth of the price - 300 million. When Bill Clinton announced that the human genome could not be patented and should be made freely available to any and all, biotech stocks crashed - resulting in a loss of 50 billion dollars in two days.

- Intel's 2009 4th Quarter Net Income was about 2.3 Billion dollars.

- NASA's 2009 Operating Budget was about $17 Billion dollars.

- NOAA's 2009 Operating Budget was about 4.1 Billion dollars.

- This years approved Department of Defense budget: $668.3 Billion dollars.

LIGO's expenditures are hardly "Epic".

The failure of the LIGO means a failure of Einstein's bogus relativity

We haven't fully reproduced the process of abiogenesis either, but does that negate the entire concept of abiogenesis is bunk and should be replaced by biblical creationism? We haven't synthesized a fully artificial genome yet, but does that mean that life code is fundamentally read-only?

Can you demonstrate conclusively that LIGO's failure to detect gravitons as of yet is due to their non-existence and not because of a limitation or error in attempted method of detection?

Do you really think that trying to falsify SR in any fashion strengthens the position of any competing theories? This isn't king of the hill rules here, and the falsification of one theory does not verify competing theories by default. That's creationist-think right there... laboring under the false impression that somehow damaging or tearing down evolution would "prove" creationism or promote it to mainstream acceptance for lack of an alternative.

I know, its a tough position to be in, but given your arguments those are the only two choices left for you.

False dichotomies are false. That you don't agree with the Standard Model and SR is fine, but the limits of your opinions are not the limits of Scientific understanding.

Please explain how the non-detection of gravitational waves is in anyway different than the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment which resulted in Lorentz's relativity being wrongly rejected.

They're not, and that's the point. Neither Gravitons or Lorentz's Relativity is supported by mainstream science. They are both hypothetical. The only difference is the differential in research being done to validate them. LR has close to nil, while the existence of gravitons is still suggested as being potentially viable.

If you think LR is still viable, or has been unfairly cast aside, then find a sympathetic economics professor to help you write up a paper describing a proper interpretation of LR which describes how it surpasses SR/SM in explanatory potential, propose experimental conditions which demonstrate it's predictive superiority over SR/SM, and submit it for peer-review. If you can actually manage to make a case for LR, rather than just criticizing SR, then I guarantee the line of researchers with the taste of "Nobel Prize" in their mouths will be begging/bartering/and selling themselves to you in order to help co-author further papers.

Come on, if an 11 year old girl can get her science fair project published in Journal of the American Medical Association, then I'm sure it will be no problem for someone with a Computer Science degree.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Lasheic]

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in