It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
earthquake magnitude > 7 from 1900 to 2012
Originally posted by ajay59
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ajay59
You are completely ignoring the fact that it was impossible to move beyond the speed of light!
False. It is impossible to move beyond the speed of light in a vacuum.
Clearly you did not read the link I posted.
Furthermore your previous claim quoted below is false.
Why does an HMO have to be detected by our known scientific methods? I seen recently that E=MC2 is not quite right when scientists accelerated a particle beyond light speed! Our science, as we know it is not right!
What friggin difference does a vacuum make? BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT!
Do you know why we try so hard? I know at least in my case it's because ATS is going downhill and we're trying to preserve what it once was. This site is all about sensationalism now when once it was actually about finding the truth. Take this thread. It started with a video by a known hoaxer and then has proceeded to spout every debunked claim about Nibiru there is. Yet it has 63 flags and 41 stars. Now let's look at the thread I made today. It was based on extensive research and corrects many of the false claims made regarding 2012. Yet because it doesn't promise magic or aliens it's wallowing in obscurity.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
This is obviously an interesting subject with potential...
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ajay59
Have you figured out why you were wrong about the exceeded speed of light claim?
Originally posted by ajay59
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ajay59
Have you figured out why you were wrong about the exceeded speed of light claim?
www.google.com... ot.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fwhy-dont-more-astronomers-report-seeing.html&ei=-WlqT4uCNaqqsQKZ882NBg&usg=AFQjCNGxg5RdNYJOJBZOQOzxiyoGmu2w2Q
Nope, have you?edit on 21-3-2012 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Originally posted by ajay59
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ajay59
Have you figured out why you were wrong about the exceeded speed of light claim?
www.google.com... ot.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fwhy-dont-more-astronomers-report-seeing.html&ei=-WlqT4uCNaqqsQKZ882NBg&usg=AFQjCNGxg5RdNYJOJBZOQOzxiyoGmu2w2Q
Nope, have you?edit on 21-3-2012 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)
Ah, too bad. Was hoping you were just misunderstanding the science, but it seems instead, you simply want to turn everything into a joke.
I had students like you when I was a teacher, disrupted the class quite well. Too bad they didn't want to actually learn.
___________________________
At some point you have those that refuse to look at the obvious science that's pointed to them time and again. Those you'll never change.
However, there are plenty of people that sit on the fence, who are willing to listen to both sides. Those people are reachable, and prove that not everyone is willing to buy every single thing that is being sold out there.
However, the longer I'm at ATS, the more and more I see people blindly believing in things, the more I think about how good I am with 3ds Max and making CGI, and the more I think maybe I should start making some money on the side too.
But my heart isn't in that. I'd rather teach people, and debate in a civilized way about things.
Originally posted by camus154
Originally posted by JonU2
There is, imo, a big influence on science by those who have power (yes, I danced around the edges there), who decide what can be allowed into the the public arena or what can be kept private.
Therefore, every science that has been allowed into the public arena is not complete..............
Ok, look....let's say you're right and to keep things simple, let's sum it up by saying politics influences and in some cases stifles science.
Fine.
Thanks, we say the same thing in very different ways....
So what? Does that mean you can't believe ANYTHING that science tells us? No, of course not. Does that mean you can't believe the MAJORITY of what science tells us? Well, again, of course not. Because as someone else pointed out, science isn't "run" by any one agency. You have professional organizations in different countries, universities, not to mention all of the closet professionals/amateurs.
So what are you really trying to say here? That science is "incomplete"? Well no kidding. It's always been incomplete, without any political force involved.
So maybe we aren't getting the "whole" picture, but we've NEVER had the whole picture. That doesn't stop us from trying, and it most certainly doesn't invalidate the scientific method or what we DO know to be true.
So to assume that any one particular pet theory just might be true and hedge ALL your justifications for believing that on the fact that we don't know the whole picture, is really no different than a plea to ignorance.
Originally posted by ajay59
www.google.com... ot.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fwhy-dont-more-astronomers-report-seeing.html&ei=-WlqT4uCNaqqsQKZ882NBg&usg=AFQjCNGxg5RdNYJOJBZOQOzxiyoGmu2w2Q
Nope, have you?edit on 21-3-2012 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)
Did you read the article? Post it, I dare ya!
Originally posted by JonU2
It could have.
Why are there so many people here that think that they know it hasn't?