Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
As a scientist i dont know what to say. I am not surpriced,but to inform you.



You're a scientist? Im also Surpriced lol

Just kidding


In any way... You have a valid point there OPer, but I think you are taking it a bit too far.
Though some things are Bull**** to maintain the elite's pockets, scientists allways try to find new ways to better our society.
The only problem is how close minded they can be, it is very hard for them somtimes to accept that the foundations for their asumptions is wrong!
And on that I agree with you.

Close minded scientists is a bad thing.

But hey, once everyone thought the world was flat...
Just give it time, one day we'll be the ones laughing at them.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


science is the only field that isn't lying to you boy, go take a cold shower and have a fag



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tektek2012
 


I would hope you mean the British meaning of the word?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

It was constructed to waste money

It is a joke

Its a billion dollar boondoggle

Everything you are being told is one gigantic fat lie.

An unending stream of lies.



Those are good lines to describe practically every mainstream medical research foundation and organization.

It's not necessarily the case that science is a lie; it's what the public is told about scientific discoveries, progress and research is a lie.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


therrree



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Well saying it is all a lie is a bit overwhelming, but I do see your point. I look at it in the following way...science is easily corrupted to achieve an end to a means. Global warming is pure money and control as it's junk science in it's penultimate form. Einstein's theory of relativity is very much open to debate. The initial debate should focus on whether or not it is even a theory. I feel that it falls into the classification of a hypothesis at best.

If you are an engineer, you are faced with the disparity of reality and the theory some well degreed word smithing PhD theorist cooked up. They never had to "roll up their sleeves" and test their theory thoroughly in order to determine it's short comings and potential re-thinking (for this must always occur). The engineer understands that there are mysterious coefficients involved in many theoretical calculations...numbers derived to make the math compute.

To me, the three most important words in science are "I don't know." Proper application of this logic is necessary for all scientists...and, never discount any possibility. So far in this thread, there has been a thorough discounting of the very notion of the topic. Suggesting mental health is a bit twisted.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Personally, I learned long ago that my inability to grasp a concept in no way invalidates that concept. Because I personally can't grasp a certain idea does not make it impossible or even unlikely.

Just a small rule I try to always keep in mind.

Interesting post regardless.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Space is not expanding, there was no big bang. The red shift of light coming from distant sources arrives in discrete steps meaning the Earth must be the center of the universe if the big bang theory is true, thus its not. We see high and low red shifted objects interacting with each other in space, impossible if red shift is a function of velocity. We have laboratory proven effects of light acting in a vacuum that can account for all observations in space without the need for a big bang or expanding space.


There is a thing called blue shift also, stars moving towards us showing in the oposite direction as those stars and bodies moving away from us, so your claim that Earth must be the center of the Universe in order for Big Bang theory to work is bogus. Infact we see all kinds of shift, depending on the accelleration and speed and not the least, their direction of these bodies. You seem to believe that the Universe is static, which it is obviously not. As far as we know EVERYTHING in the Universe is in constant movement, and these bodies are moving really fast too, but the enormous distances involved it appears to be static.

Also, as far as I know, the main reason why LHC was made in the first place wasn't to create black holes (MSM) or antimatter (Da Vinci Code) was that the scientists involved will try to produce the Higgs particle to see if the Higgs guy was right in his predictions, which is called "God particle" (and no I don't believe it will prove the existance of God) in certain circles.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
thanks for this thread, it really made my day. I guess I should scrap my discertation since it will be all lies anyway!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't see a black hole in that picture.

Oh. You expect to see a black hole. Good luck with that


So you believe what you can not see or prove in a lab.

I'm no physicist, but I know that you can't see a black hole. You can however observe them indirectly. That was the case with the picture I provided a link to. You failed to explain what was going on there. Them physicists say it's a super massive black hole and I see no reason to doubt them.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
what a great thread.

yes yes lets bash that which we dont understand and crush it! that may work at the local bar or when your with friends but science is your friend. Weather you like science or not science will be fixing your world, making things better.
Well with most science experiments there are no immediate results, lets look at our good buddy einstein. It took him probably what 10 years I think of having solar eclipses observed to confirm or deny his theory. Things dont happen right away like when you put sugar and cream in your coffee. See your a junior alchemist and didnt know it.

Science gave you the internet.
Science created the textiles to create the clothes your wearing.
oh I could go on and on but i dont want you to get to enthusiastic over your new love of science.


3 cheers for science

HUZZAH!
HUZZAH!
HUZZAH!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
OPs

Why not start a thread for a single coherent case per item you reject...state the findings, the conjecture, the facts that support your claim of its falsehood, etc.

To simply say all theoretical science is false is a bit nieve...all science starts first in theory, then as provable fact..to make a sweeping statement as you did basically shows not only any future advancement based on this theoretical science will not come, but where we are today is impossible because of former theoretical science being false...such as, oh..avaition, spaceflight, faster than sound travel, etc...all once just theoretical science that was eventually proven.

So, pick your fights, streamline it, and make a thread for that purpose only...with such a grand list and sweeping statement, the only way one can read your topic post is just a ranting of insanity.

Who knows, maybe your right...maybe every theory out there is complete hooey, but until you spend time explaining clearly point by point without being sidetracked with 20 other issues you disbelieve in, you will never find out.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I've done that on many different boards, web sites, and even in here many many times.

The evidence against the standard model is so overwhelming that I could write an encyclopedia of articles refuting it.

Given the epic amount of science refuting the standard model, it comes down to Occam's razor.

The simpler explanation tends to be the correct one.

All of the following are entirely hypothetical and have no basis in laboratory proven physics what-so-ever:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
dark flows
wimps
machos
neutronium
strange matter
multiple dimensions
the hydrogen fusion model of stars
gravitational waves
the "god" particle
frame dragging
the big bang
the big crunch
gravitational lenses
pulsars
magnetars
etc.. etc.. etc...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The Earth was not formed out of dust circling the Sun. The provable physics of dust in space absolutely prevent dust from forming into planets. This is most obvious in the rings of Saturn. Planets don't form from dust circling bodies. Even the standard theory’s own models fail to show how this is possible.

An unending stream of lies.


Cold Welding is a possibility, and its been "proven" in a lab if you will.

Now you do realize that each time you talk about "proven things" they are being proven by the very people you are calling liars, right? I mean, that doesnt add up in and of itself.

Also, a great percentage of comets/asteroids and other outer solar system objects have a high concentration of Ice. If you see a comet has a tail its usually from Ice in the body of the comet. Well, since we cant really go up there with a rock hammer its hard to prove, but I have no desire to try and prove anything to anyone who has already made up their mind.

If you really want us to believe anything you say isnt a lie, I suggest you post your theory that explains even the most basic of observable phenomenon in the universe. Its easy as 3.14 to say this crap is wrong, but until you propose your own theory of why we see what we see in the sky, Im inclined to believe that you are the one lying



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I've done that on many different boards, web sites, and even in here many many times.


Then allow for my second response here by suggesting after each point, in your main post here, you give quick links to the point you are making so that people will have the option to quickly see what you are saying.

Incidently, I am curious as to what you believe the nature of reality to be overall if indeed all theoretical science is bunk...some sort of virtual reality? Reality has to be something, and your claiming currently our views are pushing the incorrect model...what, in your opinion, is the correct model?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

All of the following are entirely hypothetical and have no basis in laboratory proven physics what-so-ever:

black holes
dark matter
dark energy
dark flows
wimps
machos
neutronium
strange matter
multiple dimensions
the hydrogen fusion model of stars
gravitational waves
the "god" particle
frame dragging
the big bang
the big crunch
gravitational lenses
pulsars
magnetars
etc.. etc.. etc...


You realize, I hope, that most of the list can not be studied in a lab, as your statement seem to imply... but some can. Here's a recent study at RHIC:


We report the observation of antihypertritons—comprised of an antiproton, antineutron, and antilambda hyperon—produced by colliding gold nuclei at high energy. Our analysis yields 70 ± 17 antihypertritons (Formula) and 157 ± 30 hypertritons (Formula).


That's strange matter for you right there.

There is ample evidence for gravitational lensing etc. I totally understand that you never had a proper physics education and feel intimidated by the subject (as many people are), and try to gain security by denouncing the whole field... Oh well, others spoke amply on that thread.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm no physicist, but I know that you can't see a black hole. You can however observe them indirectly. That was the case with the picture I provided a link to. You failed to explain what was going on there. Them physicists say it's a super massive black hole and I see no reason to doubt them.


You believe in what you can not see and what can not be proven.

That is what you believe.

Black holes can not be proven to exist.

I would argue it is easier to prove that god exists than prove a black hole exists.

Let us take the statement "God is responsible for the movement of galaxies and stars" - This argument is simpler than saying black holes are responsible, thus Occam's razor says God is the correct answer.

The scientific probability of God moving the galaxies and stars is no more or less provable than saying a black hole is doing it.

Black holes can not be created or destroyed. They can not be replicated in a lab. They violate all known laws of physics. They can not be directly seen or detected by any means. They are more powerful than any force created by man. They are perfect.

Swapping the word black holes with the word God in the previous statement is perfectly valid. There is no scientific difference between black holes and God as an explanation.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

You don't have to take my word for it.

Google everything I just said.


Oh sure.

We all know that anything Google turns up will be absolutely 100% factual and truthful.

Jeeeez





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join