Forum conspiracy theory!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given that you post neither science, facts nor "truth's" you're wrong again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Honestly, the only pressure I've been seeing put on "science and fact" is that of remaining civil while you continue to blatantly spit in the face of all that is science...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Every scientist, every student of science, every forum member who are familiar with the scientific method, has the right and the duty, to refute and deride the nonsense that you propose, no matter where you propose it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

About 6 pages back in my thread, the conspirators are there every time, I stick to my original idea that they are god trolls , pretending to do science, when their only real motive is to disrupt science.
Look yourself at the way they always aim to personally attack and avoid the subject.
I am in Psuedo section, they are like some real weird cult, very strange people who seemingly can not even read.

 

What interest is it to you, to go to extreme lengths to try to prove me wrong by personal attack ?

You are not a scientist, you are not qualified to refute hard line Physics.

You have refuted nothing by discourse of the statements.

What is your motive for the desperation in trying to get me banned?

It is not even a concern to you.

 

The only troll here is you, TC, plain and simple. The only one here who "seemingly cannot read" is you, or else you would have realized days ago just how insane your ramblings really are.

I demand you show us your PhD in physics... otherwise, this statement has no merit and is utterly worthless.

Everything you have posted has been refuted with simple scientific FACT. You are just too delusional to realize it.

It is a concern... this is, first and foremost, a forum for the discussion of scientific topics... not the semi-cognizant babbling of someone who thinks they alone in the world are right and all of science is wrong...

 

I do not think I am right, I know some of what I say is right. I know by the avoidance and denial of the truth's of members to relative simple questions.
Again the mods are influenced by members who do not even discuss. James agreed with me on some points and yet another thread binned to hide the truth.
It is not me in denial to the truths and not for a single second do I think you are all not smart enough to understand what I say.
It stinks of conspiracy.

 

Nobody is "avoiding" anything. The only denial here is from you - people are showing you how and why you are wrong, and you just blather on in spite of overwhelming evidence.

I also do not see where James agreed with you on anything in your theories...

 

Really , look back in the last thread in the earlier stages. James and I both agreed the proper definition of dark and that being also the absence of CBMR. James also changed the title because he obviously understood my meaning to clear.
I had agreement before on passive dark space, now it is denied again.
Contradictory all the time.

 

He changed the title because the original title was... less than helpful, not necessarily because he agreed or understood wtf you were talking about.

 

So, because he agreed that "dark" was the absence of light, he somehow 'agrees' with your other theories? The fact that you were able to correctly surmise that ancient people measured time by what they could observe, and that he gave you the basic rundown of how modern timekeeping is taken... means he somehow agrees that "clear" is a thing that space is full of?

I'm sure James would find that supposition fascinating, if not somewhat insulting.

 

I have not said clear is a thing.

I and James agreed that perceived darkness by sight of Humans is when there is not frequency present of 400nm-800nm.
A different ''dark'' to dark by the absence of all ''light'' including CBMR.
James also confirmed the derivation of time , also confirming by that confirmation time was based on relative motion.
James also confirmed that the Caesium second is based on the old second,

This alone confirms a lot.

This confirms dark is a state, this confirms that time, speed, distance and size is all based on relative to the Earth.

This confirms that 1 second is equal to a distance,

I need to formal debate it with no upsets, but if I messed up in that section I am gone.

 

It is you persoanlly attacking science and every giant and student of science.
And as I have already told you, it is the duty of every scientist, student of science, anyone vaguely interested in science, anyone that knows even just the most basics of science, to refute or deride crap, unsupported ridiculous claims and the general nonsense that you post, no matter where you post it.

No, I am not a scientist, and neither are you. Big difference being that I am always willing to learn, I recognise the works of the giants of the present and past, I support the scientific methodology and peer review, and I do recognise what a scientific theory is, what an hypothesis is, and what is purely speculative.

That is a lie. I have properly refuted many of the concepts you have proposed, rationally, calmly and reasonably, as have most here. But it gets terribly frustrating that nothing actually sinks into your head. You continually insult by calling all and sundry as sheep, you deride and insult those giants I have spoke of, and you refuse to consider the logical answers you have been given,

This is a science forum. I am here to learn and help others in whatever limited fashion I can. I am not trying to get you banned, but as you have been told many times, while you continue to rail against accepted science, as illogically as you do, without listening, then just as others have alluded to, and just as other forums have done to you, then yes, banning you will probably logically be considered by the powers that be. Certainly not me.

See my first reply.

 

You know what guys? You can keep your science and never know the truth. I give up in trying , you win.

I was quite surprised to find how closely science is to religion and follows religion in a such a strange way. It would not surprise me if science and religion are really one and the world is just getting scammed.

Science may of achieved many things, but science also has a lot of fairy tales, laughable stupidity and Naiveness.

I am not bothered, you had your chance to listen, the world really is that thick, so naive I will fall over laughing as I leave the door.
No point talking to the no brainer's who preach the bs.

Good luck in your useless quest.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would imagine if any one from the medical profession were here, preferably
Psychiatrists or Neuro-surgeons, they would deem you an amazing specimen for study and research.
Seriously it's sad to see you sink to this level, although if we had listed to Alex's warnings, when you started here, the writing was certainly on the wall.

 

Let's please see to it that the door is locked.

 

Science is like religion, just as religion (true religion) is like science - both require one to believe in the true and simple facts of what they are looking at... the difference with science is that, whether you believe it or not, it is still true.

Not at all... just some people, like yourself, are too impatient, prideful, arrogant, stubborn, ignorant, or otherwise blinded to the demanding processes and systems that science uses to ENSURE what it claims is truth.

And I am sure it is a chance that will come up again and again, for there are plenty of people who think they know it all when they really know so little.

Fall over, well... that you might do. Go ahead and laugh... I think Proverbs 29:9 said it best:

If a wise person goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.

Which is why so many people have given up trying to educate you

Indeed, trying to show you the truth is a fools errand, as you have willingly and willfully blinded yourself to the truth.

 

PS - at this point, is it safe to assume this thread can be closed...? Or are you coming back to balk some more...?