posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:54 PM
The scientist that theorized that the earth was round didn't accomplish anything .The man that developed instruments of measure to realize that yes,
our planet is indeed round, he ''accomplished'' something. Care to argue this?
Let's explore this idea. Take the OP's 'theory' for example; when I first read this thread, I was blown away, I'll have a vision of the PTB
configuring his voice box stuck in my head for the rest of my life - great, great idea.
But does this idea make 'sense'? Does the OP deserve accolades for it? If you ask me, he deserves a trophy, but its common sense that no, he does
not deserve a trophy because its an intangible idea, a theoretical non quantifiable thought form that doesn't exist, and we don't give credence in
our society to things that don't exist.
This site is a conspiracy ''theory'' website, but we are all searching for conspiracy ''fact,'' we read theories so that we can get to the
truth, and when we uncover tangible data we hit the mark, everything else naturally remains ''old cobblers,'' why? Because they're just ideas and
thoughts until they have substance.
Perhaps you do not understand the science world is destined to produce and realize nothing, because we live in a left brain culture, and Stephen
Hawking exposed his inability to grow as a human by allowing his left brain to be his guiding light; unable to see things for what they are, he
naturally has an extremely large ego as most atheist do, and thinks he knows 'something.' The fact is that he knows nothing, as none of us truly
know anything, and this automatically exposes his limited wisdom.
He is the perfect hipster liberal bleeding heart star child. Pseudo intellectuals can act like they understand him, associate themselves with him and
defend the man via emotion, ''oh, poor him.'' You say 'make sense of.' I say you to, once again how do any of us make sense of ideas? If someone
continues to post thread after thread of 'ideas,' after a while people say, 'this guy is off his rocker; wheres the substance?'
In layman's terms, he can speculate on that whacked out spacey nonsense, and I can show you a crackhead a few blocks away that can theorize with the
best of them. Worldwide accolade? The Beatles had millions of fans, and they sung 3 note birthday tunes that are awful in my opinion.
Just consider this for a moment, imagine during his career he realized he was doomed, as all scientists are, to realize and produce nothing
significant, so he sits down and creatively constructs the most complex off the wall bona fide theories. Wait a sec, isn't that what he did? Right?
His accomplishments? The crackhead down the block is a rather accomplished fellow in the field of theorizing as well, no? Great food for thought =
glance, garbage, gone.
You can't give substance to something that doesn't inherently consist of substance.