WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[Park Life 70]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

It's not a planet as far as I'm concerned and also it is a closed system, so obviously it won't gain nor lose any mass.

When you burn fuel you are decreasing the mass by spreading out the contents of the density of that mass.

Those contents are then spread out, but if gathered back up (theoretically) you would lose nothing and the mass would be once again, back to normal.

 

When a river flows it still ends up as the same mass once it hits ocean, except it's dispersed among it.

When water turns to steam, it disperses but falls back to water and original mass.

Nothing is lost, just changed.

So where's the radiation?

[wolfy 12]

6 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

That's the problem though Wolfy, you're the bloke in the white smock and you don't realise it. 

 

Men of science were murdered for daring to present evidence that countered the status quo, murdered by those who didn't have any counter-evidence, or understanding, but didn't believe the new evidence and had the arrogance to declare their fantasy as Gospel.

Yeah well, I'm not declaring my stuff as gospel. I'm putting my theories forward for people to muse over, or call me a nut.

Am I the only arrogant one by sticking to my thoughts or are you arrogant in telling me I'm wrong because you've been arrogantly told to follow something from which you legitimately have no clue about as to being a reality.

 

We could all declare anything as a truth but proving it is the crux of the matter and none of us can physically prove any of what we are talking about.

The hardest part is people admitting to it.

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

No, pretty much the opposite actually. Historically it was the empiricists who went against received wisdom that were persecuted. Fortunately, they won out and helped form this lovely western world we live in. People like you have always been irrelevant to the establishment and enlightenment, you contribute nothing to the world. 

That's fine.

 

 

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Park Life said:

So where's the radiation?

The radiation is all around you. It's called vibration/friction of matter and is always radiating you.

The minute you stop receiving radiation, you freeze to death.

[The Fish 9006]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

Yeah well, I'm not declaring my stuff as gospel. I'm putting my theories forward for people to muse over, or call me a nut.

Am I the only arrogant one by sticking to my thoughts or are you arrogant in telling me I'm wrong because you've been arrogantly told to follow something from which you legitimately have no clue about as to being a reality.

 

We could all declare anything as a truth but proving it is the crux of the matter and none of us can physically prove any of what we are talking about.

The hardest part is people admitting to it.

 

Yes, you're the arrogant one for claiming the rest of the planet (and all the great minds that have had their work dismissed by you) are wrong and at best blindly following what they've been taught at worst complicit in a massive conspiracy.

 

I'm not the arrogant one (in this case) as I would happily accept your new reality, if you proved it.

[Meenzer 14059]

Catts fer me like 

[wolfy 12]

Just now, The Fish said:

 

Yes, you're the arrogant one for claiming the rest of the planet (and all the great minds that have had their work dismissed by you) are wrong and at best blindly following what they've been taught at worst complicit in a massive conspiracy.

 

I'm not the arrogant one (in this case) as I would happily accept your new reality, if you proved it.

Who's work am I dismissing?

I'm just a pissant on a forum with my very own hypothesis.

How  can I destroy any esteemed scientists thoughts or work?

 

If what theoretical scientists tell you, is a truth and you accept it for whatever reason, then you can live your entire life with that belief and argue against people like me by using their work.

The issue is in the fact that you are using their work to argue something you do not know is legitimately correct but mass opinion backs you up, so who am I in all this?

I'm just a retarded pissant who sits in his mothers basement with egg yolk and gravy down my top, with a big mat of greasy hair.

 

I'm fine with all of that but it still does not make you correct. 

[Park Life 70]

16 minutes ago, wolfy said:

The radiation is all around you. It's called vibration/friction of matter and is always radiating you.

The minute you stop receiving radiation, you freeze to death.

If we were that close to an internal sun we would be crisped as would all life on this planet.

 

You know what happens when you sit in the sun too long and that thing is millions of miles away.

 

Our internal sun can't create energy and burn energy at the same rate. Because the change in matter back to a form that can be energy again (fuel) takes millions of years. It's why suns die out (collapse) or explode.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Park Life

[Renton 17817]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Who's work am I dismissing?

I'm just a pissant on a forum with my very own hypothesis.

How  can I destroy any esteemed scientists thoughts or work?

 

If what theoretical scientists tell you, is a truth and you accept it for whatever reason, then you can live your entire life with that belief and argue against people like me by using their work.

The issue is in the fact that you are using their work to argue something you do not know is legitimately correct but mass opinion backs you up, so who am I in all this?

I'm just a retarded pissant who sits in his mothers basement with egg yolk and gravy down my top, with a big mat of greasy hair.

 

I'm fine with all of that but it still does not make you correct. 

Very few scientists are theoretical though, a point you keep ignoring. Scientists work through measuring things. This is quite important. 

[wolfy 12]

7 minutes ago, Park Life said:

If we were that close to an internal sun we would be crisped as would all life on this planet.

 

You know what happens when you sit in the sun too long and that thing is millions of miles away.

 

Our internal sun can't create energy and burn energy at the same rate. Because the change in matter back to a form that can be energy again takes millions of years. It's why suns die out (collapse) or explode.

The sun you see in the sky is a reflection. It's not a physical thing.

The real energy you see is from the centre.

The moon and all other fixed sky lights you see are all part of the set up of reflected energy.

 

Oh and yeah, I know how mad it sounds, but yet people believe in a 850,000 mile diameter ball of nuclear fusion that is 93 million miles away from Earth as we move around in in some kind of wobbling elliptical motion and always having the stars follow suit.

This sounds normal because we've been trained to accept it as normal, when ...to be honest...when thought about fully, it becomes what it is. Nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited May 16, 2017 by wolfy

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

Very few scientists are theoretical though, a point you keep ignoring. Scientists work through measuring things. This is quite important. 

Tell me who the physical scientists are that prove what we've all be coaxed into accepting?

[The Fish 9006]

13 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Who's work am I dismissing?

I'm just a pissant on a forum with my very own hypothesis.

How  can I destroy any esteemed scientists thoughts or work?

 

If what theoretical scientists tell you, is a truth and you accept it for whatever reason, then you can live your entire life with that belief and argue against people like me by using their work.

The issue is in the fact that you are using their work to argue something you do not know is legitimately correct but mass opinion backs you up, so who am I in all this?

I'm just a retarded pissant who sits in his mothers basement with egg yolk and gravy down my top, with a big mat of greasy hair.

 

I'm fine with all of that but it still does not make you correct. 

 

Well, there's a lot to unpack there, most of it speaks to an insecurity that perhaps you should talk to someone about and I'm being absolutely serious.

 

 

[Park Life 70]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

the sun you see in the sky is a reflection. It's not a physical thing.

The real energy you see is from the centre.

The moon and all other fixed sky lights you see are all part of the set up of reflected energy.

 

Oh and yeah, I know how mad it sounds, but yet people believe in a 850,000 mile diameter ball of nuclear fusion that is 93 million miles away from Earth as we move around in in some kind of wobbling elliptical motion and always having the stars follow suit.

This sounds normal because we've been trained to accept it as normal, when ...to be honest...when thought about fully, it becomes what it is. Nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

But where's the radiation of our internal sun? Why can't we measure it?

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

Well, there's a lot to unpack there, most of it speaks to an insecurity that perhaps you should talk to someone about and I'm being absolutely serious.

 

 

The only thing shocking about this post is in the time it took you to get to this stage.

I expected you to come in with this carry on well before you did.

Not to worry though...you managed it in the end.

 

 

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Park Life said:

But where's the radiation of our internal sun? Why can't we measure it?

To physically get to it would be impossible, because like I said, it would be like walking towards a magnet factory in a knights armour. Potentially.

 

[Park Life 70]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

To physically get to it would be impossible, because like I said, it would be like walking towards a magnet factory in a knights armour. Potentially.

 

Ok so where is the magnetic field of this internal sun?

 

Oops I fucked up there. The molten core does produce a magnetic field. But not proper go to the shop radiation.

 

Jesus I'm ans my own fucking questions now.

 

You win.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Park Life

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Park Life said:

Ok so where is the magnetic field of this internal sun?

It's in the actual usage of it's energy that pushes the atmosphere out as it takes it in, creating the north and south magnetic fields we are familiar with.

[The Fish 9006]

28 minutes ago, wolfy said:

The only thing shocking about this post is in the time it took you to get to this stage.

I expected you to come in with this carry on well before you did.

Not to worry though...you managed it in the end.

 

 

No, I'm being serious. Being a little askew is one thing, but "I'm just a retarded pissant who sits in his mothers basement with egg yolk and gravy down my top, with a big mat of greasy hair." suggests to me there's something else going on.

 

Nobody has accused you of any of that, just that you're an arrogant man with an insufficient grasp of science, insufficient for one who is comfortable dismissing it.

[wolfy 12]

9 minutes ago, The Fish said:

No, I'm being serious. Being a little askew is one thing, but "I'm just a retarded pissant who sits in his mothers basement with egg yolk and gravy down my top, with a big mat of greasy hair." suggests to me there's something else going on.

 

Nobody has accused you of any of that, just that you're an arrogant man with an insufficient grasp of science, insufficient for one who is comfortable dismissing it.

Insufficient grasp of what kind of science?

Theoretical science?

Pseudo-science?

Hypothetical science?

Or natural science?

 

What don't I grasp that you physically do grasp?

If there's anything you can refute from what I say then be my guest. Other than that you're basically telling me nothing and showing me nothing, except your line of thought that I should seek some kind of help for some reason, for posting on a forum.

 

The bit I put in is just what the usual people tend to say when theories don't fit into their mindset or schooled thoughts.

Imagine a world where a person cannot have their own opinions, no matter how much they differ from the accepted norm.

 

 

Oh wait, we actually just about do.

[The Fish 9006]

8 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Insufficient grasp of what kind of science?

Theoretical science?

Pseudo-science?

Hypothetical science?

Or natural science?

 

What don't I grasp that you physically do grasp?

If there's anything you can refute from what I say then be my guest. Other than that you're basically telling me nothing and showing me nothing, except your line of thought that I should seek some kind of help for some reason, for posting on a forum.

 

The bit I put in is just what the usual people tend to say when theories don't fit into their mindset or schooled thoughts.

Imagine a world where a person cannot have their own opinions, no matter how much they differ from the accepted norm.

 

 

Oh wait, we actually just about do.

 

 

 don't throw a tantrum Wolfy. I'm honestly saying that if your mind went straight to calling yourself those things, then there's shit going on that maybe you should talk to someone about. 

 

fwiw, you're demanding I disprove your theory? Well, two things, 1) Parky is doing that better than I could, 2) I don't see an end point, it's your theory that you refuse to provide evidence for, or even show your working out. Without evidence or process to interrogate, how can I refute it? As it stands it's all in your head (or written upon the internet). 

 

And, perhaps most importantly, you wouldn't accept any scrutiny of it. Were I to fly you to the edge of the atmosphere you'd claim the curvature of the Earth is an optical illusion, should you go further you would dismiss the sudden apparent weightlessness as the work of inverted denpressure within our tin can, were you to set foot on the moon you'd dismiss it as an island within the dome.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by The Fish

[Alex 30442]

Has to be a parody account like. I'm looking at you, Adios.

[Ayatollah Hermione 12767]

2 hours ago, wolfy said:

I'd say the burden of proof is on everyone, not just me.

 

 

How did this go unchallenged? If I say something like "When the sun is out, my arse grows wings and I can fart thunder", it's not up to everyone else to prove I can't. This can't go on. Ant, close the forum down.

[wolfy 12]

5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

 don't throw a tantrum Wolfy. I'm honestly saying that if your mind went straight to calling yourself those things, then there's shit going on that maybe you should talk to someone about. 

Thanks for your concern. 

 

Quote

fwiw, you're demanding I disprove your theory? Well, two things, 1) Parky is doing that better than I could, 2) I don't see an end point, it's your theory that you refuse to provide evidence for, or even show your working out. Without evidence or process to interrogate, how can I refute it? As it stands it's all in your head (or written upon the internet). 

 

 

Yeah, Parky's doing ok. He's putting his own thoughts forward as well as trying to debunk mine.

 

 

Quote

And, perhaps most importantly, you wouldn't accept any scrutiny of it.

I accept all scrutiny of it but I won't accept scrutiny of it that produces no debunking of it by the usage of theories that are totally unproven.

 

Quote

Were I to fly you to the edge of the atmosphere you'd claim the curvature of the Earth is an optical illusion, should you go further you would dismiss the sudden apparent weightlessness as the work of inverted denpressure within our tin can, were you to set foot on the moon you'd dismiss it as an island within the dome.

When you do all of this and prove me wrong, I promise I'll never question another thing.

 

 

 

 

[The Fish 9006]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

I accept all scrutiny of it but I won't accept scrutiny of it that produces no debunking of it by the usage of theories that are totally unproven.

Well, that sentence deserves scrutiny. Not by a physicist, just a GCSE English Grammar student.

 

I think you're saying that you won't accept any testing that uses the current scientific status quo as a base? 

 

If that's the case, what you're asking is for someone to use your "logic" to disprove your own theory. 

 

If not, then I've misunderstood what that sentence is trying to say.

[wolfy 12]

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

Well, that sentence deserves scrutiny. Not by a physicist, just a GCSE English Grammar student.

 

Student or a fully qualified university standard professor would be fine. It won't change anything but feel free to arrange anything you see fit.

 

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

I think you're saying that you won't accept any testing that uses the current scientific status quo as a base? 

 

I'm saying I won't accept any attempted debunking by people who profess to know the truth without actually knowing the truth.

 

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Quote

If that's the case, what you're asking is for someone to use your "logic" to disprove your own theory. 

 

No, not at all. I'm not asking anyone to do anything. It's entirely up to each individual what they do or what they glean from anything I say.

Use it as a thinking exercise and ask your own questions or go against it. Either way is fine.

 

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

If not, then I've misunderstood what that sentence is trying to say.

That'll be because I didn't have a grammar student at hand. I'll try and get one for next time.