Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

page: 18
19
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Warpthal
 


This is exactly what I have been saying...and yet I am told it is wrong, as per the speculation game (according to Balazs).

Thank you for confirming my previous statements. I knew science was right.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Warpthal
 


I think you are correct with this as one factor of what causes wind...this does not however conclude all of the causes for the phenomenon. We don't get freak whether due to these hi/lo pressure boundaries ...I think its alot more complicated than scientists are willing to openly admit. some of them know there is more through first hand knowledge as well i.e. observing meteorological data, random number generator synchronicities and world events



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by arollingstone
 


>It has been disproved, through application of commonly held scientific principles. As I already told
>the OP, if he wants to challenge the status quo - the burden of proof is on him.

'Commonly held scientific principles'...



THERE is the rub!

In case I was too vague... Let me say it mmmmooooorrrrrreeeee sssslllloooowly!

Your 'science' is NOTHING but LAYERED NONSENSE.

It totally violates its OWN METHODOLOGY. (You know that little step where you verify that your 'theory' is IN FACT supported by the results of your experiments/observations...
)

It always comes down to INDEFENSIBLE dodges such as 'the burden of proof is on him'...

Which in reality comes out as (to an honest outside observer) as nothing more than something along the lines of 'because I SAY SO!'.

It doesn't go unnoticed that you never answer the relevant questions... can never refute the failed nature of your observations... Hell, never even LOOK at the raw data...

It always comes down to the questions and observations are SIMPLY REJECTED because we view them as 'NONCONCORDANT FACTS'.

Which was ultimately the 'establishments' rejection of the Great Velikovsky's body of work which utterly destroyed vast portions of history, biology, anthropology, astronomy, physics... (I don't have enough space in this post to list all of the 'sciences'/theories he annihilated...
).

Anyhow, the process is started by people such as the OP posing questions...

And REAL thinkers such as YouSir that understand the true inner workings of the process.

And guys like yours truly who apparently love to rip the wings off of 'scientists' who mouth such utter nonsense as (todays example is... the Earth sustains life because it's in the 'Sweet Spot' (Not too far, not too close, it's JUST right!
) distance from a Sun that sends infrared... No, I didn't stutter INFRARED 90+ million miles!!!
) our mostly FAIRY TALE 'science'...

(This was great fun. Thanks guys! )

edit on 23-1-2012 by golemina because: formatting




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 

800+ posts and you don't know how to use the quote function? Your post is all over the place, I don't think you know as much as you think you do about what you're talking about. Once again, as a disclaimer I'm hardly an expert in the field of science, but there is at least logic in my posts. And scientists have yet to call me out on anything I've said.

Posts like yours sound like people who are bitter that they never paid attention in physics, chemistry and biology at school and want to compensate by becoming experts in being 'open minded'. You know, 'jack of all trades, master of none'. You haven't done enough research to brush science aside. Fair enough if you had, but you haven't.



THERE is the rub!

In case I was too vague... Let me say it mmmmooooorrrrrreeeee sssslllloooowly!

Your 'science' is NOTHING but LAYERED NONSENSE.

Sounds like it's more valid than 'your' 'science'. Say it as slow as you want, it still won't make any sense.


It totally violates its OWN METHODOLOGY. (You know that little step where you verify that your 'theory' is IN FACT supported by the results of your experiments/observations... )

How so? There are various methodologies across different fields of science. I'm not aware of what a universal methodology might be, apart from looking for repeatable patterns. A theory is based on substance, not a wild uneducated guess. 'Da wind is living!!' is not a theory, it's an opinion at best.


It always comes down to INDEFENSIBLE dodges such as 'the burden of proof is on him'...

The burden of proof applies to arguing, reason, logic, law, philosophy, etc. Do you even know what burden of proof is? If not, then how can you comment on it? I really don't think you do if you're willing to make a comment like that. Ridiculous statement. The burden of proof is on him. Just as the burden of proof was on the first guy who said "Hang on, the world isn't flat."


Which in reality comes out as (to an honest outside observer) as nothing more than something along the lines of 'because I SAY SO!'.

No. Just no.


It doesn't go unnoticed that you never answer the relevant questions... can never refute the failed nature of your observations... Hell, never even LOOK at the raw data...

What on earth are you talking about? You don't think scientific study involves the analysis of data?

It always comes down to the questions and observations are SIMPLY REJECTED because we view them as 'NONCONCORDANT FACTS'.

The OP didn't post a single fact. So no, it doesn't come down to that. As I said, I'm no expert scientist but I rejected the OP because they didn't even bother to look into their own 'theory' far enough to reinforce it or substantiate it.

Which was ultimately the 'establishments' rejection of the Great Velikovsky's body of work which utterly destroyed vast portions of history, biology, anthropology, astronomy, physics... (I don't have enough space in this post to list all of the 'sciences'/theories he annihilated... ).

I'm not familiar with Velikovsky. I'm sure there is an element of suppression of valid research, I've read many examples of that. But that doesn't apply to this thread. There was no research to suppress.


Anyhow, the process is started by people such as the OP posing questions...

And REAL thinkers such as YouSir that understand the true inner workings of the process.

Yes asking questions is great, telling people the wind is alive without any justification isn't. YouSir didn't post much of substance in his response to me, posted pretty much a similar post in nature to yours. I'm not sure what school of thought you subscribe to, but I know one day if I have kids - that's one school I won't be sending them to.


And guys like yours truly who apparently love to rip the wings off of 'scientists' who mouth such utter nonsense as (todays example is... the Earth sustains life because it's in the 'Sweet Spot' (Not too far, not too close, it's JUST right! ) distance from a Sun that sends infrared... No, I didn't stutter INFRARED 90+ million miles!!! ) our mostly FAIRY TALE 'science'...

Lol "FAIRY TALE" indeed! You must have read some fascinating books as a young toddler.

You should stick to ripping wings off moths pal. You call that a fairy tale? What is so ridiculous about that, in terms of carbon-based life forms? It is one extremely feasible perspective, based on a great deal of evidence and observation. What is the 'true story' then? Why else is our planet one of the extremely rare ones capable of sustaining life? Because reptilians like blue and green and decided to lay eggs here? Because the wind got bored and decided to poop out a load of monkeys, fish and lions to harass? I would love to hear your take on it.

Wow.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Did any of you take geogrpahy in highschool ?

wind is covered entirely in standard grade geography !





new topics
 
19
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join