2 registered members (PaulL, jimboy),
419
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums69
Topics113,888
Posts1,343,634
Members1,604
|
Most Online731 Jan 14th, 2020
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325498
16/03/2012 07:51
16/03/2012 07:51
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,685 Berlin
barnacle
Club Member 18 - ex-Minister without Portfolio
|
Club Member 18 - ex-Minister without Portfolio
Forum Demigod
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,685
Berlin
|
The chance that relativity will be completely disproved are very, very small indeed - mainly because we have so much experimental evidence that it works very well indeed. Yes it works well but that doesnt make it correct. For example Speed = distance/time it works really well but it isnt exact this has been proved by atomic clocks flown on aircraft. I think you'll find that's part of the experimental evidence that Einstein's equations - and in particular the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contractions - are correct. Bear in mind that 'science' doesn't look to prove things exist; it looks to define a model *as accurate as possible* to describe observed effects. It does this by looking for ways to falsify its own theories, and testing them. Gimme a flying saucer landing at Heathrow and I'll believe you. Gimme lights in the sky, and much as I'd love to believe, you're on your own.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325505
16/03/2012 08:30
16/03/2012 08:30
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
Yes it works well but that doesnt make it correct. For example Speed = distance/time it works really well but it isnt exact this has been proved by atomic clocks flown on aircraft.
The atomic clocks soon become out of sync with changes in altitude and gravitational fluctations allbeit microseconds the effect is noticable. Therfore the equation isnt correct. Speed does equal distance/time - that is the definition of speed. What relativity says is that we won't always agree on the distance or time of an event. If you're going to confidently post about this sort of thing you really should make an effort to understand it first. Well done Andrew bascially recaping what I said more tests need to be ran to confirm. You said that it had been proved that neutrinos travelled faster than light, which isn't the case. That's the distinction I was making, how lightly you consider something proved. As for YouTube - well you made your hand pretty clear with, I think, the first video you posted in the chemtrails thread. It was a NASA video (I'm not disputing the source) showing, as the nutters would have it, huge jelly-fish like beings floating around Earth. The huge jelly-fish do look a lot like out of focus dust specs, and when the astronaut (who you've already mentioned twice in this thread as being credible, although incredibly badly spelled) is asked what he can see he says he can see debris outside the shuttle. So there you have a video with a good source, a clear explanation for what it is and a credible testimony from somebody who is there about what it shows, and you still tried to post it as great proof of extra-terrestrial life. Don't you see how that makes you a nutter?
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325513
16/03/2012 09:10
16/03/2012 09:10
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Gimme a flying saucer doing anything and you should believe. The question is how you would determine to your satisfaction that it is a flying saucer. That's the really significant problem for me: If a flying saucer landed on the Whitehouse lawn and the occupants went for tea with the President, what would it take to convince you (one) that all of this really happened and that the said saucer was from beyond the Earth's biosphere? I hate to be a party-pooper guys, but Speed = Distance/Time is correct. Call me an irritating pedant (I like it), but that is a definition. It is only in the travelling frame of reference that time dilates. BTW - I am pleased to see they have found something useful for the royal family to get on with -
Last edited by Enforcer; 16/03/2012 09:20.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325530
16/03/2012 09:44
16/03/2012 09:44
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
I'd think it's almost certain that life has evolved on alien worlds. With the trillions of stars we can see it's almost unimaginable that our little planet would be the only home to life anywhere in the universe.
However, there's a wipe gap between that view and trying to argue that every out of focus snapshot of a weather balloon is an alien craft.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: AndrewR]
#1325536
16/03/2012 09:58
16/03/2012 09:58
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,067 ation
szkom
Club member 2000
|
Club member 2000
Forum is my life
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,067
ation
|
However, there's a wipe gap between that view and trying to argue that every out of focus snapshot of a weather balloon is an alien craft. Couldn't agree more. Although I have to say, a big bit of me would like some of the balloons to turn out to be alien craft. I think Enforcer picked up on a good point; What would constitute proof? Is seeing believing?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325537
16/03/2012 10:03
16/03/2012 10:03
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603 Corridor of Uncertainty
Jim_Clennell
Forum veteran
|
Forum veteran
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
|
Gimme a flying saucer doing anything and you should believe. The question is how you would determine to your satisfaction that it is a flying saucer. That's the really significant problem for me: If a flying saucer landed on the Whitehouse lawn and the occupants went for tea with the President, what would it take to convince you (one) that all of this really happened and that the said saucer was from beyond the Earth's biosphere?
All sounds like the philosophical conjecture of Jean Baudrillard to me. The Gulf War Never Happened and all that jazz.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: AndrewR]
#1325547
16/03/2012 10:38
16/03/2012 10:38
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
So there you have a video with a good source, a clear explanation for what it is and a credible testimony from somebody who is there about what it shows, and you still tried to post it as great proof of extra-terrestrial life.
Don't you see how that makes you a nutter? Thanks again Andrew & Brewster for below the belt comments, typical debunker responses. Another Astronaut Catherine Coleman aboard mission STS 73 Clearly states we have a Ufo alongside us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1M68C7G-EEafter the live transmision comment nasa shut down the public link and diverted to encripted channel. Yet more evidence! So I ask you again Andrew what is this phenomenon?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325551
16/03/2012 10:52
16/03/2012 10:52
|
samsite999
Unregistered
|
samsite999
Unregistered
|
I don't think its down to Andrew to prove its not a alien space craft, its up to you to prove it is
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325553
16/03/2012 11:09
16/03/2012 11:09
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
Thanks again Andrew & Brewster for below the belt comments, typical debunker responses. And thank you for ignoring all of the points that you can't answer, or where you were just plain wrong (e.g. speed doesn't equal distance/time) - a typical nutter response, just keep moving the goal-posts and accusing others of not playing fair.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325580
16/03/2012 12:21
16/03/2012 12:21
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,685 Berlin
barnacle
Club Member 18 - ex-Minister without Portfolio
|
Club Member 18 - ex-Minister without Portfolio
Forum Demigod
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,685
Berlin
|
The question arises: what is a non-falsifiable evidence for alien life?
My thoughts:
- biological samples using either amino acids which are not used by any terrestrial life, or which uses a chromosome-expressing molecule other than DNA. In the latter case, the specimen had better be visibly alive, i.e. demonstrating entropy-fixing, replicating, eating and excreting.
- materials not makable in a gravity field - e.g. foamed alloys - in sufficiently larger quantities than could be made by known LEO astronauts (they're mostly making samples; the presence of industrial quantities would be a good hint for a zero-g production. Alternately, demonstrably unknown physical mechanisms - anti-gravity, FTL travel (there are ways to fake that if you can be sufficiently stealthy and have more than one ship, so be careful), and so on.
- a walkin' talkin' alien - but note pictures are not enough, given what Hollywood can do these days, hence my earlier request for a UFO at Heathrow.
Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325582
16/03/2012 12:24
16/03/2012 12:24
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
I don't think its down to Andrew to prove its not a alien space craft, its up to you to prove it is True Samsite, however clearly there is a phenomenon present here I am only trying to logicaly work out what it is. In the video sts73 the shuttle is moving aprox 18000 kmph the unidentifed object is moving far faster stops dead and changes direction at incredible speed, with catherine feeding back to nasa we have a UFO near by. I look at that and try to rule out what it isnt, its not space debree, meteor , satelite. After that it appears to be a conrtolled object, which at present we dont have the capabilty to make a space vechile to perform like that. So where does that leave us? Its no good having Andrews ' I dont know what it is but its not a alien craft' responses. At least I am trying to explain the phenomenon which has been world wide since day dot. Andrew on the other hand will not attempt to explain, what it is but states im am a nutter? And again years ago when people with andrews outlook presumed the world was flat calling the people who questioned that 'nutters'. There is also a element of rubbish on the internet ie the 'reptilian shapeshifters' which brewster kindly assumed thats what I am talking about.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: barnacle]
#1325587
16/03/2012 12:49
16/03/2012 12:49
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
The question arises: what is a non-falsifiable evidence for alien life? a walkin' talkin' alien - but note pictures are not enough, given what Hollywood can do these days, hence my earlier request for a UFO at Heathrow.
Any other suggestions? I'd want to see its passport for a start.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: Jim_Clennell]
#1325588
16/03/2012 12:51
16/03/2012 12:51
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
All sounds like the philosophical conjecture of Jean Baudrillard to me. The Gulf War Never Happened and all that jazz.
Don't go playing the philosophy card on me, Jim - it was a serious point. What exactly would you need in the way of evidence? It isn't that simple.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325590
16/03/2012 13:05
16/03/2012 13:05
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603 Corridor of Uncertainty
Jim_Clennell
Forum veteran
|
Forum veteran
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
|
All sounds like the philosophical conjecture of Jean Baudrillard to me. The Gulf War Never Happened and all that jazz.
Don't go playing the philosophy card on me, Jim - it was a serious point. What exactly would you need in the way of evidence? It isn't that simple. I agree, Brian, it isn't simple and I'm not sure what you would need beyond Neil's detailed stipulations. However, my point was adjacent to serious: consuming media coverage of an event doesn't mean the event happened, at least not in the way it is portrayed.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325597
16/03/2012 13:54
16/03/2012 13:54
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
I'd expect a bit less, actually. Neil's stipulations might confirm alien origins, but in the normal course of events we operate our beliefs on a more relaxed set of criteria, I'd say.
If a helicopter lands on the lawn, I don't need any science to feel confident about that, but an alien craft - I'd need more but I don't think I'd need the DNA samples.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325616
16/03/2012 15:03
16/03/2012 15:03
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
And again years ago when people with andrews outlook presumed the world was flat calling the people who questioned that 'nutters'. As this is at least the third time you've cited this argument, presumably in some catch-all attempt to prove that the minority is always correct, then let's see if your history is any better than your science ... who presumed the world was flat? Who did they laugh at (or call a nutter) for suggesting otherwise? Go on, have a good Google and then enlighten me.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325617
16/03/2012 15:06
16/03/2012 15:06
|
Nobby
Unregistered
|
Nobby
Unregistered
|
I think it was Jade Goody, although history has never been my strong point.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: AndrewR]
#1325647
16/03/2012 17:31
16/03/2012 17:31
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
As this is at least the third time you've cited this argument, presumably in some catch-all attempt to prove that the minority is always correct, then let's see if your history is any better than your science ... who presumed the world was flat? Who did they laugh at (or call a nutter) for suggesting otherwise?
Go on, have a good Google and then enlighten me.
Im not claiming the minority is always correct far from it! What I am claiming is there is clearly something going on here, that you cant deny. With that in mind you refuse the challange to establish what it is without logic and simply chose to ignore evidence and laugh at the people trying to come up with an explination. You chose to ignore evidence given by key people that have worked in projects assosiated with the phenomenon from miltary personal having 5 nuclear weapons shut down with a metalic disc hovering above the silos with Captain Robert salas usaf giving evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrGF6tSwZMBob Lazar worked at Area 51 S4 back engineering alien craft passes lie detector test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRRceIpedjgPhil schneider structrual engineer involved in building DUMBS (deep underground miltary bases) after he came forward with the info he was murdered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8TpzzSJru0Not to mention Gordon cooper, buzz aldrin and many other famous astronauts talking about ufos in space. The ' world being flat ' argument, I only use as a principle that the majority are not always right. I have no interest to enlighten you in any way. All these guys must be nutters aswell Andrew?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325648
16/03/2012 17:42
16/03/2012 17:42
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
So, in fact, they never called people who said the Earth wasn't flat 'nutters', or anything else - is that what you're saying? Nice to note how graciously you accepted being wrong there.
I can't be bothered to wade through all of your YouTube videos again, but I remember Bob Lazar from last time around - he's the one who has been caught clearly lying about what qualifications he has, and who you really would have to be insane to give any kind of credibility to.
As, IIRC, the Buzz Aldrin story was one he that he recounted somebody else telling him.
If you remember our last discussion on this subject - it doesn't matter how credible somebody is, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Certainly not from Bob Lazar.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: AndrewR]
#1325656
16/03/2012 18:27
16/03/2012 18:27
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
jonnybgt1759
Unregistered
|
I can't be bothered to wade through all of your YouTube videos again, but I remember Bob Lazar from last time around - he's the one who has been caught clearly lying about what qualifications he has, and who you really would have to be insane to give any kind of credibility to. Exactly you cant be bothered to look so point proved, dont bother commenting untill you have!! All of this evidence could be used in a court of law. Yet in your view its invalid. As for lazar his file was completed deleted. But after George knapp done a little digging on it found lazar listed a nuclear physist at los alamos directory along with his pay slips and passing the lie detector test. He now runs united nuclear. The only insanity is you chosing to ignore evidence.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325659
16/03/2012 18:33
16/03/2012 18:33
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
It is invalid, because it's not scientific evidence.
Lazar's a complete fraud and his story is clearly b'lox of the 1st order ... sure, the black helicopter crew deleted all of his educational records, but Lazar himself couldn't name any of his professors or classmates, or provide any evidence that he attended the schools he claims.
Seriously, by continuing to cite him as a reference you do your cause no favours at all.
Finally, as you seem to have missed it all of the times it was mentioned in last year's thread - Lie detectors DO NOT work!, they are demonstrably no better than lucky guesses. Passing a lie detector test proves nothing at all.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: AndrewR]
#1325679
16/03/2012 20:22
16/03/2012 20:22
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Enforcer
Unregistered
|
Finally, as you seem to have missed it all of the times it was mentioned in last year's thread - Lie detectors DO NOT work!, they are demonstrably no better than lucky guesses. Passing a lie detector test proves nothing at all.
What?? I watch Jeremy Kyle on a regular basis, and all I can say is that you need to check your facts. Just use a bit of common sense, (which you seem to be completely lacking). If lie detectors are useless, that means Jeremy Kyle is complete crap, and I have been wasting my time watching it. Since it obviously isn't a waste of time, it is also obvious that you have got your facts wrong. Just get a grip, mate. If science depended on people with your closed-minded attitude we'd never even have Jeremy Kyle - and then where would we be?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325687
16/03/2012 20:44
16/03/2012 20:44
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,645
JKD
Forum is my job
|
Forum is my job
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,645
|
Just get a grip, mate. If science depended on people with your closed-minded attitude we'd never even have Jeremy Kyle - and then where would we be? Watching Ricki Lake?
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: adder58]
#1325707
16/03/2012 21:54
16/03/2012 21:54
|
dlongstaff
Unregistered
|
dlongstaff
Unregistered
|
I like potato salad
|
|
|
Re: who's trying to nick our Sun?
[Re: ]
#1325739
16/03/2012 23:50
16/03/2012 23:50
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546 Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
Away from that anyway your einstein obsesion is now proved wrong thanks to CERN You might have been too quick with the 'proved' there ... Neutrinos now same speed as light
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
|