UFO’s? Yes, but why?

[Runwildboys]

einsteins said his theories fall apart if light is not constant, which many believe it is not. So, if it is not constant, what happens to everything that was built on those theories, and all those peoples life work

What people believe the speed of light isn't constant? It's possible to slow it down or speed parts of it up, through manipulation with other mediums or focused lasers, but light itself is constant.
But, if it were proven that light isn't constant, then scientists would rework their equations to have more accurate outcomes. That's the beauty of science. It doesn't deny reality.

 

[Rockport]

Arrogance, delusion, and vanity

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

[dsturgeon]

What people believe the speed of light isn't constant? It's possible to slow it down or speed parts of it up, through manipulation with other mediums or focused lasers, but light itself is constant.
But, if it were proven that light isn't constant, then scientists would rework their equations to have more accurate outcomes. That's the beauty of science. It doesn't deny reality.

Which leads back to what is science. A hypothesis, and a repeatable experiment that proves that hypothesis, that does not change. Reality denies what you call science

theories, equations, "more accurate outcomes"

foolishness

 

[Runwildboys]

einsteins said his theories fall apart if light is not constant, which many believe it is not. So, if it is not constant, what happens to everything that was built on those theories, and all those peoples life work

Einstein, Capernicus, and Darwin, 3 theories, what happens if they are not right. Think of everyhthing built on those 3

You are right, I am not smart enough, but I don't trust all this stuff either. Do you trust the scientists on disease, vaccines, and all that is involved, after watching this past year. Generations of research

I trust trust scientists to give me good information, much more than I trust my neighbor, or even my mother. They're not always right, but if not for them, we'd still be dealing with polio, smallpox, measles, etc.

 

[dsturgeon]

I trust trust scientists to give me good information, much more than I trust my neighbor, or even my mother. They're not always right, but if not for them, we'd still be dealing with polio, smallpox, measles, etc.

I don't trust anything anymore. I stopped getting my flu shot 6 or 7 years ago, I stopped taking the little bit of pharmaceuticals that i did take, and besides a runny nose in the mornings sometimes, I don't get sick

I am going to eat what a book tells me is clean to eat, follow a few commands, and see how it goes, haha

 

[Runwildboys]

I don't trust anything anymore. I stopped getting my flu shot 6 or 7 years ago, I stopped taking the little bit of pharmaceuticals that i did take, and besides a runny nose in the mornings sometimes, I don't get sick

I am going to eat what a book tells me is clean to eat, follow a few commands, and see how it goes, haha

Who wrote the book, and how did they determine the food is "clean"?

 

[Turk]

And a flavor factor

just maybe trailer trash has a bit extra tang to its taste....

 

[dsturgeon]

Who wrote the book, and how did they determine the food is "clean"?

The part about unclean food was written by a dude with a staff who led some people out of egypt a long time ago, but it was a principle long before that. You might even say at creation

If you look at it scientifically, it aligns with unclean food eats other animals, feces, trash, and are garbage disposals. How their bodys function, dispose of toxins, and so on. I think the cdc or someone like that said that pork is the leading cause of cancer. Pork, shellfish, buzzards, and etc

There are also experiments where they mix different meat in soil and grow plants, and the nutrient levels in plants that are grown align with the clean animals, and the unclean is very low. Or something to that effect, i don't remember exactly

Clean animals eat grass and so on. Cows, deer, sheep, goats, and etc

 

[Turk]

Pretty much every system in the galaxy is out in the sticks, relatively speaking. Some are just closer to Appalachia.

Wrong. The closer to the center of the galaxy the greater density of star systems. Where we are located IS out in the sticks.

 

[dsturgeon]

Yeah the scientists were SO knowledgeable about covid. You trust government and its experts way too much.

I hope you had your mask on when you typed that

 

[Runwildboys]

Wrong. The closer to the center of the galaxy the greater density of star systems. Where we are located IS out in the sticks.

Closer, yes, but most are still light years away from any other solar system. We're about 3/4 of the way out on our particular arm of the galaxy, but the local density is still relatively the same, or at least for all intents and purposes.

 

[Cowpolk]

They're here to raid our vending machines. Until we got the ones with the letters/numbers, there weren't so many coming around. Now, they're all over the place and taking chances on being discovered because snacks are the bane of mankind and alienkind. But beware the ones that are drawn to the powdered doughnuts, they're not completely evolved. They're like Eagles fans only then can levitate. Eagles fans can levitate but they need light poles.

Never heard of a sighting around Philly, have you? Of course not, they know better. Even the dumb aliens are smarter than we are.

Thank You

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

The scientists who've studied the cosmos for most of their lives build on what those who came before them did. They test the theories and do the math, and when they're satisfied that the theories are sound, they branch off to do their own work and create theories of their own.

Of course it's possible that there are explanations other than what mainstream science has conceived, which is why it keeps evolving. Peer reviews are there both to back up and disprove hypotheses, and no matter how long and vehemently a theory has been supported, if someone comes along with a better explanation, or even shows why the current theory is flawed, the scientific community doesn't ignore them.

There are things in the universe that were mathematically predicted, using Einstein's Theory of Relativity, before they were ever physically witnessed, such as black holes.

If people wish to just dismiss things, simply because they either don't understand and can't imagine anyone else could, or because it flies in the face of everything they've believed (without any proof whatsoever) that's their prerogative, but when they make unsubstantiated and baseless claims of foul play, forgeries, and disinformation in an effort to further their point of view, I have no respect for their assertions.

What possible reason would the scientific community have for making stuff up? Why would all of them play along?

When someone says, "prove it", then claims the photos are CGI, what more can anyone do to show them the truth? There are some people who could be taken into space on a ship and they'd say it was all an elaborate hoax, perpetrated to keep them in the dark.

At some point, people have to just realize there are other people who simply know a lot more than they do.

There is a difference between a fact and an accepted theory. Facts can be proved 100%. Accepted theories are ideas that the scientific community agree on, but can't be proven. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Well to me, its it's false until proven factually. For instance the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor. It is an accepted theory but it is not a fact. There is no way we know what killed the dinosaurs. It could have been Jurassic Covid that killed them.

And the one thing I don't like about the scientific community is...they present their accepted theories as facts. That tends to confuse a lot of people about what's real and what's not. NASA has a write up on the big bang theory on their website but they don't use the word theory throughout the whole write up. So when the scientific community starts talking about wormholes, parallel universes, alternate dimension, blackholes and their knowledge of the sun...I tend to get a little sceptical. Especially if it's an illogical theory. So just because they've studied something for an extended period of time doesn't mean they know what their talking about.

Light bounces around in the sun for a year before it finally exists. There is no way they can possibly know that. They didn't follow a photon of light for a whole year. They can't xray all the way to the core of the sun. They didn't receive data from a probe they lunched into the sun. So I know for a fact that they make up data just to continue to receive funding.

NASA launched a satellite probe into the sun. It was destroyed before it hit the surface, but they came up with their light bouncing around theory right after that. The government spent millions and millions of dollars to launch this probe. So can you imagine what would have happened if NASA came back and told the government...we learned nothing form that probe. Their funding would have been cut. So they lie and make up crap just to continue to receive funding. Heck, I can do that.

The scientific community has a bunch of accepted theories about space, but they have very few facts.

 

[Cowpolk]

Why is it that most people that get abducted by aliens live in trailer parks?

I was abducted when I lived in a trailer park. I'm thinking about moving back. All the alien ladies look like Hale Berry I kinda liked it!

 

[Hardline]

They exist and have for years.

You have evidence?
So far no one else has.

 

[dsturgeon]

I was abducted when I lived in a trailer park. I'm thinking about moving back. All the alien ladies look like Hale Berry I kinda liked it!

From all the accounts i have heard from people, the alien ladies do the probing. What are you trying to tell us?

 

[Cowpolk]

From all the accounts i have heard from people, the alien ladies do the probing. What are you trying to tell us?

 

[Runwildboys]

There is a difference between a fact and an accepted theory. Facts can be proved 100%. Accepted theories are ideas that the scientific community agree on, but can't be proven. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Well to me, its it's false until proven factually. For instance the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor. It is an accepted theory but it is not a fact. There is no way we know what killed the dinosaurs. It could have been Jurassic Covid that killed them.

And the one thing I don't like about the scientific community is...they present their accepted theories as facts. That tends to confuse a lot of people about what's real and what's not. NASA has a write up on the big bang theory on their website but they don't use the word theory throughout the whole write up. So when the scientific community starts talking about wormholes, parallel universes, alternate dimension, blackholes and their knowledge of the sun...I tend to get a little sceptical. Especially if it's an illogical theory. So just because they've studied something for an extended period of time doesn't mean they know what their talking about.

Light bounces around in the sun for a year before it finally exists. There is no way they can possibly know that. They didn't follow a photon of light for a whole year. They can't xray all the way to the core of the sun. They didn't receive data from a probe they lunched into the sun. So I know for a fact that they make up data just to continue to receive funding.

NASA launched a satellite probe into the sun. It was destroyed before it hit the surface, but they came up with their light bouncing around theory right after that. The government spent millions and millions of dollars to launch this probe. So can you imagine what would have happened if NASA came back and told the government...we learned nothing form that probe. Their funding would have been cut. So they lie and make up crap just to continue to receive funding. Heck, I can do that.

The scientific community has a bunch of accepted theories about space, but they have very few facts.

I've never heard of this probe to the sun. They know very well a probe wouldn't survive, so that would be a suicide mission, when they could get just as close by putting it in orbit, and they'd get much more information. I'm not saying they didn't send a probe, but it seems unlikely that they'd do that and claim the information about the interior of the star came from that probe. BTW, they theorize that each photon we see starts in the core of the sun as a gamma ray, a byproduct of nuclear fusion, then bounces around in the core for up to 100,000 years, where it loses energy each time it bounces off or gets absorbed and emitted by hydrogen, helium, etc. atoms, eventually becoming an x-ray, then visible light before finding its way to the corona and making its 8 minute trip to Earth. They theorize this based on mathematics and quantum mechanics. Are they right? I don't know, but I give them 85% of my trust that they know what they're talking about.

As for wormholes, they've never claimed they exist, only that if space is curved, it's possible that wormholes could exist as shortcuts between 2 points in space.

Here is the scientific definition of theory:
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

 

[dsturgeon]

I've never heard of this probe to the sun. They know very well a probe wouldn't survive, so that would be a suicide mission, when they could get just as close by putting it in orbit, and they'd get much more information. I'm not saying they didn't send a probe, but it seems unlikely that they'd do that and claim the information about the interior of the star came from that probe. BTW, they theorize that each photon we see starts in the core of the sun as a gamma ray, a byproduct of nuclear fusion, then bounces around in the core for up to 100,000 years, where it loses energy each time it bounces off or gets absorbed and emitted by hydrogen, helium, etc. atoms, eventually becoming an x-ray, then visible light before finding its way to the corona and making its 8 minute trip to Earth. They theorize this based on mathematics and quantum mechanics. Are they right? I don't know, but I give them 85% of my trust that they know what they're talking about.

As for wormholes, they've never claimed they exist, only that if space is curved, it's possible that wormholes could exist as shortcuts between 2 points in space.

Here is the scientific definition of theory:
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

epigenetics is far more believable than evolution

 

[Cowpolk]

epigenetics is far more believable than evolution

Both occur at the same time epigenetics is part of evolution