All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vanhippi
"All Science Is A Lie"

Wow, now that is a bold statement.


Not really.

He never attacked the "Scientific Method" , In fact the OP seems to be one of the ONLY PPL USING the "Scientific Method"!

He was attacking the "Institution of Modern Science" as nothing more than a "Money leeching waste of space".

And he is 100% right. The Institution lies all the time to benefit it's agenda or it's funding $$$$. And it is willing to harm people for profits (pharma corp, oil corp, military weapons etc etc etc).

So the Institution of Science IS A JOKE. A LIE!

The Scientific Method PROVES THIS!!




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
I too tend to think of electromagnetic waves as just that...waves. But to fly in the face of the great, arrogant Einstein? Who is anyone else to say...isn't everyone supposed to blindly follow him. While I was at college, several physics PhD's didn't agree that the theory of relativity was valid. In wikipedia, it says that the theory of relativity is governed by mathematical equations that are based on hypothesis. And the difference between hypothesis and theory is semantics...by definition a theory requires more proof of the idea than a hypothesis.

Einstein's theory has been tested with actual experiments so many times and so far things are looking good for the theory. Most experiments have turned out just like predicted (thou for example gravitational waves remain to be detected). So why are you claiming that Einstein's theory is just a hypothesis? Ignorance?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by orangutang
 



....and the sun powered by fusion? boulderdash and poppycock!


Shhhhhh.....I have to go back to work, shoveling he coal into the Sun....

...no, we don't use "boulderdash"... It's "Mrs. Dash", much better seasoning.

It's what gives the Sun its beautiful golden color.....


How about you build us a hydrogen to helium fusion reactor here on Earth so we don't have to buy gas any more.

Oh, that's right, its impossible for such a reactor to be built on here on Earth because the entire notion itself is about as plausible as the flying spaghetti monster.

How do real physicists create hot fusion here on Earth? Oh, that's right, they use streams of charged plasma.

Funny that Alfven showed how such streams of charged plasma could better account for the observed fusion on the sun than the failed model of hydrogen to helium fusion.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
and so far every single one of those experiments has failed to disprove the theory.


I will give my own response.

How does Relativity explain the UFO i saw fly straight up into the sky at what looked to be OVER MACH 40 (Warp speed if you will) leaving a tracer of light that only lasted a brief second???

How does relativity explain my own experience in real life?

It can't, it never will.

According to that rubbish theory, what I saw was impossible. FTL is against all the rules in that close minded illogical game.

I thank God(Nature Universe whatever) for gifting me with the wonderful experience of seeing such a UFO in real life.

Had I not seen it in Real Life, I may actually believe the bunk you guys are saying.

But since I DID SEE IT, I know as a fact, your theory is just flat out bunk.

This is just my point of view. Take it as you will.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Shhhhhh.....I have to go back to work, shoveling he coal into the Sun....

...no, we don't use "boulderdash"... It's "Mrs. Dash", much better seasoning.

It's what gives the Sun its beautiful golden color.....


So how exactly does one burn something that is colder on the interior than the exterior, e.g., the sun?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


As mentioned in my last post I have really enjoyed this thread . I would be interested if you could provide some links where this wave " theory " is spoke about ?

I would be interested in reading up on this .

Thanks



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying so I'm not going to spend any serious time refuting you.

Rest assured that the high priests of science appreciate your beliefs and the continued flow of your tax dollars into their quack projects.

LIGO, LISA, the LHC, CDMS, etc.. etc.. etc..

all worthless, have provided nothing of value, and cost us a fortune.




I understand completely what your saying. Your calling theorists liars. Even when their theories have been shown time and time again to work.

You say its all wrong because of a few anomolies. Well what about your precious theory of electric universe? It is full of anomolies. It was built by the same thoerists you call liars.

I don't care if you put any time into refuting me as you haven't offered one piece of counter evidence. To refute someone you need information not just rambling facades.

I'm sure all your electirc universe high priests are sitting back and laughing at your denial of everything modern science has accomplished.

Its hard to refute working devices based on modern theories isn't it.

You say you can explain it in a simple way that does not need standard model physics. I'm asking from one ATS'er to another to please do so.

I'm not so closed minded that if you do offer real evidence I will deny it. Which it seems is exactly opposite of yourself.

Please for everones benifit explain all of the things the standard model makes possible without using the model itself. It won't hurt your argument to actually show what your talking about rather than ranting and saying people don't understand.

If we are to understand you then you must present evidence my friend.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


How about you build us a hydrogen to helium fusion reactor here on Earth so we don't have to buy gas any more.


How about instead of pumping trillions of volts every year into those stupid worthless "particle colliders" and other such contraptions.

We use that energy to power the poor folks houses at low to no cost?

This proves it is a massive scam at the detriment of starving humans everywhere.

And all those wasted billions of $, could have fed every hungry person, clothed every naked one, and housed every homeless one for the next 100 years.

It's sickening. Repulsive.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
According to that rubbish theory, what I saw was impossible.

Without that rubbish theory even GPS wouldn't work. What goes for your encounter. Your story is rubbish.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by muzzleflash
According to that rubbish theory, what I saw was impossible.

Without that rubbish theory even GPS wouldn't work. What goes for your encounter. Your story is rubbish.


No.

There is a better theory that explains why GPS works.

You are like a guy telling someone in 1900, that TELEGRAPH works because "YOUR VIEW" of the Laws of Physics is CORRECT.

In another 100years, the new big theories will take credit for GPS working. Just as the new theories of the 1900's took credit for steam engines and telegraphs.

Point is, your argument is a logical fallacy.

Just because GPS works, does not mean Relativity is correct.

That is not cause and effect. It could be a coincidence. How do you know?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by muzzleflash
According to that rubbish theory, what I saw was impossible.

Without that rubbish theory even GPS wouldn't work. What goes for your encounter. Your story is rubbish.


No.

There is a better theory that explains why GPS works.

You are like a guy telling someone in 1900, that TELEGRAPH works because "YOUR VIEW" of the Laws of Physics is CORRECT.

In another 100years, the new big theories will take credit for GPS working. Just as the new theories of the 1900's took credit for steam engines and telegraphs.





Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment that was later built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair function of GPS within hours if not accounted for.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
Its hard to refute working devices based on modern theories isn't it.


Oh gee, another red herring. This exact argument is used in every single anti-mainstream science thread that is ever posted on the Internet.

It's completely irrelevant. So a computer works... great. Some engineers built it, which really had very little to do with "science" and next to nothing to do with black holes and dark energy and a fusion powered sun.

So you can listen to your iPod while driving to work. That proves what exactly?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I believe there was already said that gps relied on a proven concept.


GPS clocks comply with Lorentz relativity



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Also, while were at it.

Explain how the UFO goes faster than light with Relativity. Sorry it didn't open a wormhole so thats out of the equation. (UNless you claim it is a invisible wormhole or something lol).

Also explain to me EXACTLY what happens when Water boils. I want to know EXACTLY how it happens.

Please hook it up with the links.

Because the truth is, modern institution of science cannot answer these simple questions rationally because their view of the universe is too limited for them to account for such things.

Have you even heard the discussions physicists have about "Boiling water"? Do you realize how LITTLE we know about physics???



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


As mentioned in my last post I have really enjoyed this thread . I would be interested if you could provide some links where this wave " theory " is spoke about ?

I would be interested in reading up on this .

Thanks


There are several models out there, some more complete than others.

My favorite is done by Gabriel LaFreniere.

www.glafreniere.com...

Milo Wolff has an excellent site on it.

www.quantummatter.com...

Blaze Labs has done some work on it.

www.blazelabs.com...

Hyper-physics has done some work on it.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros




Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment that was later built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair function of GPS within hours if not accounted for.


This is not cause and effect.

This is effect happens, and you assume cause.

The problem is when you get something that "Sorta works sometimes" you think it is suppose to always work.

Certain things only work in certain situations.

Where is that "Unified Field Theory" anyways? ??

I'll wait it out. No worries.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
more links on the wave structure of the electron

www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by constantwonder
Its hard to refute working devices based on modern theories isn't it.


Oh gee, another red herring. This exact argument is used in every single anti-mainstream science thread that is ever posted on the Internet.

It's completely irrelevant. So a computer works... great. Some engineers built it, which really had very little to do with "science" and next to nothing to do with black holes and dark energy and a fusion powered sun.

So you can listen to your iPod while driving to work. That proves what exactly?


Uhm. . . .

The transistor makes your world possible my friend.

The transistor was invented by a physicist. o before you go saying that engineers built it hows that scientific perhaps you should understand the components of these devices.

They rely on the standard model. John Bardeen won the nobel prize in physics twice for his invention of the transistor and again for his work in superconductivity.

Familiarize yourself with these things before making gross misstatements like that.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The bow and arrow was built by a physicist.

Does that mean his theories on the Universal laws were correct?

No.

Your argument fails massively.

Let's move on please.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join