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.


I'm FED UP with conventional science.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:09 AM

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

“There are many examples of old, incorrect theories that stubbornly persisted, sustained only by the prestige of foolish but well-connected scientists. Many of these theories have been killed off only when some decisive experiment exposed their incorrectness.”

So, you think you've got it all figured out huh? That science explains away the things that just don't seem normal to you, that it accounts for 99% of something that humans cannot explain?

Look at this.

That is a insignificant portion of this universe, in which there's 100s of stars, and 10s of millions if not billions more we cant see beyond that image.

Here's us.

On our rocky little planet

Moving along as if we are something important.

I see some of the people on here who praise science up and down left and right and practically worship the current fundamentals of science as though it was the only thing that existed (no pun intended), almost as though they don't want to admit that everything we've grown to know as real is only a rough prototype of what real is.

You, and ohhhhh, you know who I am talking about when I write this, no names needed to be mentioned, move through;

Proposed Ideas
Footage of the abnormal
Esoteric ideas
Hidden archaeology
Foreign concepts to native science

as though it was just a feeble joke, as though it has no significance.

Did you ever stop to think "what if"?

Do you think scientists like Albert Einstein built the principles and of science on what they knew? No, they surely did not. They built their principles on things they didn't know anything about, they built their understandings on things they did not understand, not what they already knew.

Nikola Tesla didn't discover alternating current by playing around with candles and gun powder, he discovered it by thinking to himself, something along the lines of, what if, then how.

You persistent skeptics that viciously tear into every subject that is a slight tad out of the ordinary do not only ruin the concepts of some possibly enlightening threads, you ensure that every future thread will be derailed and sent into a furious debate between skeptics and what you would like to classify as lunatics, or people who need to be medicated.

If anything, it is YOU who need to be medicated with some hallucinogenics or meditation to get out of your tiny, insignificant box, and see this.

Not only do we not know the entire science of our planet, we do not know any of the sciences possible in any other parts of the universe.

Who is a scientist to say that matter operate the same way as they do on Earth, 5 million light years away? Who is to say that nothing can travel faster(or accelerate as fast) as light when the only light we see is that which is fathomable to our own eyes?

What gets you off on saying there's no such thing as perpetual motion? The universe IS perpetual motion, everything is always moving, spinning outwards from a big bang, or just randomly existing. Matter IS perpetual motion and that is the reason that we EXIST, we exist through the vibrations of space and time, NOT through or feeble understandings of our insignificant selves.

Are you so egotistical to think that this is it? That what we know is more important than what we don't know?

If that's the case, then you need to ask yourself this question:

"What am I doing here"

I don't care if you're atheist, religious or a robot. You know for a damn fact that there is a purpose to life, regardless of what it may be, it is most DEFINITELY not to sit around and collect dust believing in whatever outdated physics book is thrown your way.

Good luck on your path through life, but whatever you're looking to find, if you even know what you're looking to find, you're not gonna find a damn bit of it by being a skeptic.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:28 AM
yeah, whilst einstein was a very smart guy, victor schauberger believed the path he and mainstream science was on was wrong. splitting the atom, combustion engines and a-bombs - all of it results in pollution, inefficiency and utilises nature's DESTRUCTIVE motions rather than its CONSTRUCTIVE motions.

using nature's constructive motions would involve vortex type energy - you'd have to read his books he explains it better (i recommend 'living water' by victor schauberger) which has been trialed to power ufos; and he also obtained energy from water w/o using electricity

he says if our technology makes use of natures contstructive motions (how it creates rather than destroys things), we wont end up with pollution, inefficiency waste and environmental destruction. becuas these end products are the result of use of nature's DESTRUCTIVE motions - resulting in heat, explosion, combustion...

i think v schauberger was the counterpart of einstein, only smarter.
used to build ufos by the nazis during the war; and a genius only not well known.

also the first environmentalist who said, dont clear fell forests, harvest the interest not the capital; and warned that water would one day be a precious commodity sold in bottles - no one believed him then of course, but he was right.

he also said if we dont start respecting nature and learning how to better unlock its secrets in a way that respects and preserves it and the environment and works in harmony with its processes, then we are all in deep '**** basically.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
i gave you a star and flag for what you said about skeptics on this site.

it does stifle creativity and thought.

which is the basis of all knowledge... as you say - 'what if'? you have to be able to ask the question;

and intuition is a very undervalued commodity these days...

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:36 AM
I think science is worthless. It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere. Why are we wasting our being?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by onequestion]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by onequestion]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:48 AM
My point in this thread, let me make it clear.

I am in no way, shape, or form, against the debunking of blatant crap, you will find myself debunking blatant crap before I jump to a conclusion.

When I find something in question, I however may state that I do not know the answer to this.

But, just by PURE observation, these elite skeptics and debunkers, take into hand everything they've learned to be plausible solutions to the question at hand, even if the solution does not fit.

For instance, I can take any video of a UFO and say it's CGI, Swamp gas or Chinese lanterns, am I right?

Hell no, it very well COULD be a UFO.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:07 AM
I read Tesla thought Einstein's theories were mathematical abstractions that do not truly reflect physical reality. For example he didn't believe in curved space time. Now obviously his equations work, but I think it's a matter of it being a mental trick we play with our minds. A theory is only a way to explain an observed behavior. Einstein never got his theory to work with quantum physics. I read in Nick Cook's book, the latest "black world" physics are far beyond what's in our university textbooks. Basic stuff we think we know is wrong. It seems like there are vast fields of science unexplored and unknown by conventional science.

I've listened to Michael Savage's radio program, one of his more intelligent rants was against modern academic science and its pitfalls and how stifling the university culture is nowadays.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:23 AM
reply to post by Revolution-2012

Science and the scientific method are the best tools we have to finding the truth about our Universe. Today's modern theories are only as close to the truth as we can currently get. As new data is found and new experiments conducted the appropriate changes will be made. No self-respecting scientist pretends to know everything, that's something that the ignorant and overzealous religious folk like to do. What exactly is wrong with needing evidence before you'll believe something?

You persistent skeptics that viciously tear into every subject that is a slight tad out of the ordinary do not only ruin the concepts of some possibly enlightening threads, you ensure that every future thread will be derailed and sent into a furious debate between skeptics and what you would like to classify as lunatics, or people who need to be medicated. If anything, it is YOU who need to be medicated with some hallucinogenics or meditation to get out of your tiny, insignificant box, and see this.

There are, of course, closed minded people on BOTH sides of the aisle. There are skeptics who refuse to concede the possibility of certain phenomenon and ideas and there are a great many zealots and believers who refuse to accept the possibility that their phenomenon or ideas are hogwash.

The best stance is one of open-minded skepticism and its one that I often take. Don't be so quick to generalize skeptics. Remember that without healthy skepticism every hair-brained idea would be accepted as truth. People would buy into anything if it wasn't for skepticism. And the thing is that people DO buy into anything they are sold as truth.

You've got people running around believing that Reptilian shapeshifters are disguising themselves as television reporters and world leaders - I'm sorry but I'd rather be a skeptic than believe some of the slop that gets peddled as truth around here.

Again its all about open-minded skepticism, being open to an idea if evidence is presented to support it. However if someone expects you to believe something without any evidence, especially something that is fairly out-there, than they are expecting you be gullible and ignorant... We're supposed to be denying ignorance.

We don't have all the answers and anyone claiming that they do is lying, that goes for hardcore skeptics and believers alike. We do, however, have a pretty good grasp of our own planet, the Universe and our own origins and though all the gaps aren't filled in that's no reason to abandon science in favor of superstition and ignorance.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:58 AM
I'm all for never saying something is impossible, but why believe in something when all the evidence points to it not existing.

Lets say ghosts, surely being rational and taking on the evidence without bias you should come to the conclusion that they don't exist. Yet that's considered closed minded?

Science isn't about 100% fact, we use the the theories and rules that work the best based on the results of experiments. They may change as we discover new evidence.

"Skeptics" weigh up everything and make a decision and based on that, and if it comes out on the side of "unlikely" then that's what they believe.

Just because you, for some moronic reason, get upset that people use logic to come to decisions isn't the scientific communities fault.

If your kid asks you if he can survive a gunshot wound to the head, are you going to say "don't be skeptic" because medical science says he won't?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
You know for a damn fact that there is a purpose to life, regardless of what it may be, it is most DEFINITELY not to sit around and collect dust believing in whatever outdated physics book is thrown your way.

I think "purpose" is the one thing we, as humans, will never come to accept. When a kid is born in some third-world country, his parents die at the age of 5, and then the kid dies at age 8 due to random gunfire, what purpose did that kid serve? If nobody knows who he is and nobody ever comes back to the area the kid was at, why was he even alive? Was he the man firing the gun in a past life, and he killed a kid with similar circumstances in a similar manner? What about those at the top with millions of dollars? Did they live many horrible past lives, and this is the way for karma to balance it out? What about those who live by themselves and never have contact with those in the outside world, or babies who only live for a couple of days? What is their purpose?

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have a predetermined purpose in life other than to exist. Anything beyond that is plastic and transient, and purpose in that is in the eye of the beholder. Most people would say that making a lot of money, raising a family, and becoming well-known is a fulfilling purpose whereas sitting around watching television or partying all the time is irresponsible and empty. The only reason we try to believe in a purpose in life is because our lives are restricted by the concept of survival. If you don't take responsibility, you could lose your home, your job, your method of transportation, your money, your freedom -- in short, your livelihood. However, once you know you will no longer die no matter what, your purpose is fulfilled 100%, and you can do whatever you want. You can sit around and watch television for 50,000 years, and at the end, you don't feel empty. Why? You can always start over.

We try to fill the small time we have on this planet with some kind of purpose, but if we ever evolve to the point where we no longer die, we will have fulfilled our purpose without even knowing it.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:03 AM
Science is constantly evolving and embracing new theories and discarding obsolete ones as we learn more about our world. Skepticism is a good thing to have at your disposal. I mean look at this definition of skepticism
I'll agree that things can get childish and hostile around here. We should all choose our words wisely and speak civilly with each other. Furthermore, OP, I personally tire of all threads like yours I admit I had trouble reading your writing but I do know that you want ALL skeptics to just disappear, but why? So that you and like minded people can just live in never never land where anything is possible at any time?

Skepticism is an integral part if science as is imagination, creativity, curiosity.

Finally, I want to reiterate that these kind of complaining threads do nothing to help anything. People should engage each other and respecfully, even when disagreeing instead of trying to wish some other group away

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Threadfall]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Threadfall]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:08 AM
Revolution 2012,
I agree with a lot of what you say in your OP.

I'm a fan of science and think it's a sound base to get an understanding of our universe as best we can, but it is far from the complete picture.
What I find, however, is that many people on here that appear to embrace science are actually far from scientifically minded themselves, as a key element of a successful scientist is to be open-minded and be open to all possibilities.
Sadly, many of these pseudosceptics form their entire worldview around mainstream scientific theories and anything that goes against these is dismissed because it hasn't been proved by science. Essentially, it is the argument from ignorance that they employ.
Thankfully, I think these people are outweighed in number by genuine open-minded sceptics on these forums.

Another flaw I feel with basing one's entire worldview on scientific findings is the fact that we just don't know that much about our universe in the grand scheme of things - a point I think you were intimating with the phtos in your op.
The very nature of the progression of science means that some of the theories being fervently championed by people on here will be looked at in many years time as being rather eccentric or quaint. This is unavoidable, but it is imperative for someone who is truly sceptical to believe that what they are arguing for could be complete bunk and to rigorously assess it, rather than accept it as the truth, which so many pseudosceptics do.

There is also the problem that whoever is arguing from a scientific perspective has a limited knowledge of science as a whole due to the limitations of the human brain. There is just too much science out there for someone to have any kind of complete knowledge of. How much, for example, does a highly intelligent man like Michio Kaku know about archaelogy, molecular biology or oceanography ?
Pseudosceptics, I find, tend to have a pop-science knowledge of most disciplines, yet pass this off as being some kind of an expert.

Pseudosceptics will also counter a claim with any kind of mainstream theory that they can find, regardless of whether it fits the facts or not.
If someone was to post a topic saying they had a picture showing an alien craft, then you'd get about five different suggestions by debunkers as to what the craft actually is. Even if one of those suggestions is correct, then it means that four of the suggestions from sceptics are as factually incorrect as the original claim that it was an alien craft.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by FAQAmerica
Lets say ghosts, surely being rational and taking on the evidence without bias you should come to the conclusion that they don't exist. Yet that's considered closed minded?

I think a problem with this is that you are discounting all personal experiences as false by dismissing something as non-existant despite many credible experiences.
There are more than enough stories from sane people that defy any current scientific explanation; that is not to say that ghosts are definately true, but - for me, at least - it still leaves room for doubt until there is a valid scientific explanation for some of these stories.

There is also the possibility that ghosts do exist, but only certain people ( for whatever reason ) are able to see them, or that they exist and are undetectable by any current scientific instrument.
I do believe that it's a little closed-minded to dogmatically conclude that ghosts don't exist, and there is an element of the argument from personal incredulity to assume that something is 'irrational' be it doesn't fit with current scientific consensus.

To assume that everything in the universe has an explanation that can logically and rationally be explained by the human brain, is in itself an irrational assumption, based on the belief that a product of the universe ( our mental faculties ) can accurately assess and answer everything that exists in our universe.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by Revolution-2012

You're fed up with conventional science?

How much science do you know?

Yes, that's what I thought.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by FAQAmerica

If your kid asks you if he can survive a gunshot wound to the head, are you going to say "don't be skeptic" because medical science says he won't?

You're making a mockery of yourself. You don't need science to figure that out.

In fact, you could create a human and leave him from contact from all other humans, and place him in the outside world, and by INSTINCT he'd KNOW not to jump off the edge of a cliff. Pain is instinct, not a scientific analysis you fool.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Threadfall

I'm not complaining, I'm stating the facts and trying to make people see what they're doing.

I'm not against skepticism, as you can clearly see in my post.

But when people look at NASA footage, and there's fast darting projectiles flying out at a UFO, and people say it's ice particles, that's ridiculous.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:15 PM
In the truest sense we know very little. Science is about as concrete as a vacum. I'm in total agreement with you. Scientist see their faith in results as somehow different from religous faith when in fact they're similar. S + F nice thread hopefully all the ego manical pseudo intellectual scientists will pay attention.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by Revolution-2012

I was just about to star and flag this post as most parts of it I definitely agree with. The reason I'm not going to star and flag this post is because of this quote:

I don't care if you're atheist, religious or a robot. You know for a damn fact that there is a purpose to life, regardless of what it may be, it is most DEFINITELY not to sit around and collect dust believing in whatever outdated physics book is thrown your way.

That was just one giant end all for me. No, there is no purpose to life. You get born, you grow, eat, poop, and die. That's it, that's the purpose, to do nothing more than eat poop and die. There is no higher ultimate reason for existence, the universe itself is not intelligent nor is there some invisible naked sky daddy or whatever excuse your going to put forth for exclaiming there is a purpose to life.

If people want to sit on their lazy ass, then let them, that's their purpose.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:12 PM
Hi there,

What about Global warming? i have been looking on the net and doing some experiments of my own and i am unable to find a solution to the theory that scientists say that sea levels will rise if the polar caps melt.. Are the Governments hiding something? i believe they are but as of yet i am unable to find what... any help?

it is very simple science experiment that proves that water levels do not change when ice melts, try it for your self:-

take a 1 pint glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water and wait... When the ice melts it doesn't leak over the edges so there is no solid evidence of water levels rising when the poles melt... could governments be hiding things underneath the snow and ice? what do you all think?


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:23 PM
Yeah you are severely misinformed.
You should read a little bit about the astrophysics and Einstein and Tesla before making just huge extrapolations. Einstein and Tesla did the same as what scientists do today. They come up with an idea and test it using empirical evidence.

Astrophysics and the history of our universe has some good explanations. However it is quite hard to prove everything. Like one guy to using the speed at which the universe is expanding to calculate the age of the universe. Find the speed by analyzing black holes and other universe aspects.

Science tries to find out what we don't know by testing it. If one hypothesis fails multiple times than its obviously not working. Science is trying to understand and discover what we don't know.

Physics and science books are updated regularly. The idea of science is to build upon previous work and even to re-test previous ideas. You don't know test it and build upon that previous knowledge.

Aren't you a skeptic believing in what conventional science deems untrue.

If we just had people like you sitting around believing in whilly nilly without testing anything or proving anything we would not be here today. We would have nothing.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge much like trying to find or prove:
Footage of the abnormal

Except those you can't prove with evidence so why waste your time.

Science may not always be right but we test theories and hypothesis over and over to find out what does happen.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by theo86

Thats a bit stupid. The ice is floating within the water. Small portions float above but that simply when melts creates a larger meniscus. Depending on the amount of ice the water level could have rose. However ice has a smaller density and once it melts it becomes more dense and compact. So depending on the ratio of ice to water and submerged ice to ice above water the water level could increase, decrease, or stay the same technically. however the ice caps are on land, above water, are huge, and will raise the water level.

I would trust the guys putting in years of work on the subject.
The ice-caps also contain a lot more water than ice in a pint glass

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Grant123]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in