Signs your "theory" might be wrong....

Post Reply New Topic

Projecting.

I mean no offence, but while you may have a strength in taking in information, you give a very strong impression of not being able to evaluate the information you are absorbing or to sort the wheat from the chaff. Your information absorbing also seems to be entirely biased towards your pet conspiracy theory and you have little or no knowledge of science itself, which is key to the whole thing. I've come across lots of conspiracy theories over the years and when the proponents of those theories start talking incorrect science they are dismissed.

By analogy, if someone approaches a group of mathematicians and claims that 2 + 2 =3; those mathematicians would require solid evidence of this. When pressed, the proponent of 2 + 2 = 3 gives links to various conspiracy websites saying it is an international government cover up, hiding the fact that 2 + 2 = 3 or that those who refuse to accept 2 + 2 = 3 are closed minded. Your wild claims are no different to this analogy. A better starting point for the person making the claim would be for them to learn mathematics and then he would a) know what he was talking about and b) be able to provide evidence that other mathematicians would be able to seriously consider.

So I suggest that rather than hoovering up more conspiracy theories and trying to convince the world of their validity, that you first learn science. It will give you the basis to evaluate all the information you are absorbing and the ability to express anything truly earth shaking in a matter in which people can understand and evaluate for themselves.

How would you know when you haven't seen all the information? That is why that stance from you is not scientific.. a good scientist wouldn't make a determination without getting the data...



You seem to forget I had a family remember that witnessed a craft at point blank range.. there was no mistaking it.. and his account has been completely corroborated by others... as well as being corroborated by history. The Westall incident which you also haven't watched completely corroborates what he witnessed.. this stuff is ALL over... and that isn't even the most incredible aspect of what I have discovered..



That is a horrible analogy.., because it starts with an assumption... you are making an assumption about things you don't even know. That is not science in any way shape or form. That you think it is is really proof of what I am saying...



To "learn science" you have to go through the corrupt system... one in which you are conditioned not to think outside of the box they have designed... that isn't science.

Another huge mistake you make is to think that someone who isn't a scientist can't make a discovery ABOUT the scientific community or history involving science... it shows small mindedness or megalomania not to understand that.

I also think that many scientists have become bigoted towards anyone perceived to be a conspiracy theorist... which is by design... it makes me wonder if the conspiracy theorists have been made to be the "jews" of this new massive conspiracy.

You don't have a clue do you! Not one god damn clue. Don't know why I wasted some more time responding to your delusions... and you can't grasp why nobody takes you seriously! Ooooh it's all a conspiracy by the establishment. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat. What - a - waste - of - time.

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance?




Or someone who is trained in science and believes they understand it learning that the entire system that taught them their beliefs and ways of thinking is a lie...

That the people who they looked down on and mocked for so long are actually more capable than they are because they have been so conditioned not to really use their minds..

There are multiple governments and they love pulling ahead of each other, even when allies but especially when not allies. And they all have access to the same information sources you are using- the internet and books. If there was anything to this, the governments that can afford particle accelerators would be doing this. If this technology could exist currently, every major power would be scrambling to be the first. It's not like the US has a monopoly on science.

AS for thought experiments, they are for inspiration, not for proof (which is how Einstein used them too).

How do you know that they aren't working together? Freemasonry is spread across all countries... Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_VsLF2fGpU

This is why they talk of the New World Order so much.. because in reality it's already in place. All these people in power know that if all this stuff came out they would lose their power. The whole world would change in ways they couldn't conceive.



You forget that most people don't look in these areas.. which i by design... and the ones who do are part of these groups...



No.. he designed them so that they were proof.. that was the whole point... that's why they were called experiments. Not just ideas... he studied nature to come to these conclusions . They are extrapolations. When you know the data it proves what the answer has to be... when you understand a system you can predict the results.. Just as I feel I understand the system now so well. I have examined all the data and see how the pieces fit together.. you can extrapolate the results. In my situation there are a couple different possibilities. To get to the bottom of that will require tearing the conspiracy down and finding those answers.

Incorrect. You really don't have a clue about science... or have any grasp on reality.

Last edited by TallyMan on 25 Jun 2013, 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is the most sensible post in this thread.

what was it then... luck?

what is the point of an experiment?

Thought experiments are a unique type of experiment.

The point of most experiments (the science type) is to provide data to help answer a question and tell us something about the world.

Thought experiments, on the other hand, do not tell us anything. They are either there to raise questions, make us examine our views (particularly in the field of ethics), or explain a difficult point that is hard for people to understand. An example of the latter is Einstein's "bedsheet" thought experiment to explain how gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime. This did not "prove" anything, it just illustrated what Einstein had already proved for a lay audience.

Does a computer simulation tell us nothing? Prove nothing?

Temple Grandin was able to solve problems other engineers couldn't because of her ability to run complex simulations in her mind..

The visualization centers of her brain are proven to be far more developed than the normal person...

Einstein was the same way.. from my past experiences I feel I have similarly over developed areas that allow me to come up with ideas and see patterns and recall pivotal information...

Computer simulations tell us very much and prove nothing. Telling us something and proving something is true are two very different things. What computer simulations do is give us a very educated guess of how things will turn out in a given system given certain data. Weather prediction is a good example. Weather forecasting does use computer simulations to make predictions that are as accurate as possible. Those simulations give a very educated guess of what weather systems will do and when and how much. But they aren't proof. The actual weather is the proof and as we all know, weather predictions are not always accurate. But they are close enough for the simulations to be valuable.



Yes. She is justifiably famous for that. She was able to visualize the world as cows saw it and use that visualization to design ways to channel them through disinfection, vaccination and ultimately slaughter without them getting scared. But those visualizations were not the proof. They were the inspiration for what should be done. The proof was observing the actual reactions of cows (they remained calm) after she had done the re-designs.



You could be as visually skilled as Einstein and Grandin but the ideas are not the proof. They are ideas. The proof comes after the ideas are tested in the physical world, not just thought about.

Neither thought experiments nor computer simulations prove anything. We can indeed learn from them and they may give us insights into how things may work or about reality itself, but it is only by probing and measuring theories against reality itself that leads to proofs.

I used to work for the British government designing and programming scientific computer simulations. A computer simulation is not a proof. On the contrary it can show where there are limitations in the understanding of a phenomenon or when that understanding is extrapolated into new areas. The accuracy of a computer simulation depends on a) the accuracy of the mathematical models upon which it is based i.e. how close the mathematics matches reality and b) the availability and accuracy of data to feed into the simulation. Some computer simulations can be quite accurate e.g. predicting the required trajectory and fuel usage for a probe sent to Mars or can be only rough approximations e.g. predicting next week's weather forecast.

Thought experiments can be very useful to provide insight into how something might work. They do not constitute proof, they merely provide avenues for investigation. I have made considerable use of thought experiments myself in both the scientific and computing fields. The intuitive side of the brain can sometimes provide valuable insights that can be used as the basis for further analysis. Sometimes this intuition can be correct, sometimes it is not.

Computer simulations and thought experiments do not constitute proof of anything. Only experiments based on reality itself are capable of proving or disproving theories.

We aren't talking about ideas here.. we are talking about extrapolations... very very very different..