Gravitational waves

[Mick F]

Dinosaurs .........
Paleontology has been studied since the 5th century.

[kwackers]

Manc33, what proportion of (say) western Europeans do you think would have to be "in the know" of one or more of your conspiracies if your views were correct?

Almost all.

You can't argue with conspiracy theorists. We have one at work, you can take each item of 'proof' and demonstrate it to be nonsense but even when all the "proofs" have been shown to be false they still don't believe and magically reinstate all the proofs for the next time. (And then accuse you of having a "closed mind" because you don't believe what they believe.)

You see the standard "get out" clause used above. 'If I don't see it with my own eyes' - and obviously who has time to check everything? Funny how they'll readily believe all the "evidence" against even though it requires the same degree of 'faith'...

[[XAP]Bob]

What a complete load of twaddle...

It was also sufficiently disjointed that I don't really know what it is Manc doesn't believe in - possibly he doesn't believe in gravity?

[gaz]

.

[[XAP]Bob]

21 pages - would it be easier to list the thing Manc *does* believe in?

Do you agree that 1+1=2 (in any base greater than 2?

[gaz]

.

[Manc33]

Manc33, what proportion of (say) western Europeans do you think would have to be "in the know" of one or more of your conspiracies if your views were correct?

Very few.

Code: Select all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)

(in code tags because the forum can't handle the bracket at the end)

Details of many things that Manc33 does/does not believe in here. The list is not exhaustive.

I was getting the sidereal and solar day mixed up, I have got better proofs now (my last post, where I said I'm not getting into it all and got into it all). viewtopic.php?f=15&t=103658&start=60#p991989

[[XAP]Bob]

"Better proofs"

That's like a "more unique" solution?

To be honest the post you link to is so disjointed I still haven't a clue what you don't believe.

Are you claiming that the earth doesn't rotate? Or that it isn't a sphere (imperfect oblate spheroid)?

[kwackers]

"Better proofs"

That's like a "more unique" solution?

To be honest the post you link to is so disjointed I still haven't a clue what you don't believe.

Are you claiming that the earth doesn't rotate? Or that it isn't a sphere (imperfect oblate spheroid)?

It took me a while to figure out conspiracy theorists.
In the end what I realised is it's a clique, a club where the members reinforce each others beliefs to the point of being able to ignore the obvious in favour of stuff that doesn't make sense or even stand up to scrutiny and more bizarrely if true would result in the most stupid complexity imaginable with more loopholes than you could wave a stick at.

The important thing is 'it's a club' you're either a member or you're not and if you're not there's almost no point in trying to reason, discuss or challenge the beliefs because that's what defines it.
Think of it as a religion and you wont be far wrong.

[Manc33]

In the end what I realised is it's a clique, a club where the members reinforce each others beliefs to the point of being able to ignore the obvious in favour of stuff that doesn't make sense or even stand up to scrutiny and more bizarrely if true would result in the most stupid complexity imaginable with more loopholes than you could wave a stick at.

This describes quite well the way it works with gravity. A bunch of scientists that have no proof for it reinforce each others beliefs and ignore that it doesn't make sense or stand up to scrutiny.

So you don't have any answer to the speed change thing then?

Everything you said is an opinion.

Assuming you're located at the equator and Earth rotates at 1,000 MPH while orbiting at 67,000 MPH:

Q1: How fast are you moving at 12AM?
Q2: How fast are you moving at 12PM?

I would respect people a thousand times more if they gave a number as an answer (which is what the answer is going to be, a number) instead of opinions on "conspiracy theorists" and their behaviour.

[kwackers]

I would respect people a thousand times more if they gave a number as an answer (which is what the answer is going to be, a number) instead of opinions on "conspiracy theorists" and their behaviour.

You see the problem is I've dealt with conspiracy theorists for far too long to realise there's actually a point.

Pretty much everything you've written is bunkem. Most of it can be dealt with by the use of a calculator, some common sense and a bit of observation but both you and me know there's no point.

There was an interesting article on conspiracy theorists in New Scientist and why folk think like that and what basic behaviour has been subverted.
Interesting for me that is, for you of course it's just another example of scientists conspiring against us.

[[XAP]Bob]

In the end what I realised is it's a clique, a club where the members reinforce each others beliefs to the point of being able to ignore the obvious in favour of stuff that doesn't make sense or even stand up to scrutiny and more bizarrely if true would result in the most stupid complexity imaginable with more loopholes than you could wave a stick at.

This describes quite well the way it works with gravity. A bunch of scientists that have no proof for it reinforce each others beliefs and ignore that it doesn't make sense or stand up to scrutiny.

So you don't have any answer to the speed change thing then?

Everything you said is an opinion.

Assuming you're located at the equator and Earth rotates at 1,000 MPH while orbiting at 67,000 MPH:

Q1: How fast are you moving at 12AM?
Q2: How fast are you moving at 12PM?

I would respect people a thousand times more if they gave a number as an answer (which is what the answer is going to be, a number) instead of opinions on "conspiracy theorists" and their behaviour.

Your assertion of a lack of proof had better be floating 6 inches above a desk...

[kwackers]

Your assertion of a lack of proof had better be floating 6 inches above a desk...

He fails gravity 101 when talking about orbiting the sun so I wouldn't expect anything too clever.

[kwackers]

So you don't have any answer to the speed change thing then?

I wasn't going to bother but in fairness...

Your problem is you don't really understand the physics and I suspect that's why you can't get an answer you like.

Forget orbiting the sun, imagine the world is just spinning and not moving.
So according to you I'm doing plus 1000mph on one side and minus 1000mph on the other.
If that were true just by standing here I'd be changing velocity by 2000mph each rotation.

Well that's obviously bunkem. Imagine a match glued to a beach ball that's rotating, it never accelerates it's always moving at a constant speed.
So in my frame of reference standing here I'm simply always doing 1000mph there is no acceleration and if the earth acquires any any forward velocity we suddenly don't go from having a constant 1000mph to suddenly having plus and minus 1000mph.
Nothing changes.

What you tried to pull was based on an observer who wasn't standing on the earth but rather at a point in space. To that observer the speed is indeed changing but if they were stood on the earth it wouldn't be.

Seriously, learn to understand frames of reference, because you can't mix them and expect anything to make sense.
Pretty much everything you posted above is based on mixed frames of reference and hence why it's all bunkem.

[Manc33]

No offence but anyone can say what both of you guys just said, it is all opinions - no numbers were given.


"Pretty much everything you've written is bunkem."

Right, but this isn't answering it, this is an opinion.

No it isn't in reference to an outside observer, it is in reference to an object resting on the equator.


"for you of course it's just another example of scientists conspiring against us."

No they aren't covering this up and I have already posted a link to "Compartmentalization" which you have obviously not read, here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=103658&start=75#p992352

I have never once said scientists are covering anything up! You're simply claiming I think that.

Only the very top scientists need to know anything and these are people you'll never see in public. Scientists in the mainstream simply don't need to know any of this stuff. They are too busy "knowing" Earth is a spinning ball to ever look into alternative answers, plus their belief is reinforced with bunk like "They couldn't cover that up" when they can with compartmentalization (information security) which I have already told you about and you're ignoring, so I have answered it, I do have answers, but you conveniently ignore them and make stuff up I never said to make my argument look weaker.

Anyone being honest would never bother to do all of that, you could just be objective but refuse to. This is just like the guys (at least 2) that joined CTC as soon as I joined it just to post telling people here not to listen to me! Thats normal! One of those guys joined BR something like 10 or 12 years ago without ever joining CTC in all that time and ABRACADABRA the second I post something here he is replying, sometimes at 8AM in the morning, a minute after I have posted. Again thats normal isn't it, when the guy had not joined or posted here at CTC for 10 or 12 years prior to that.

That only makes sense if someone is paying these people to do that. Who just does that off their own back, no account here in 10 or 12 years and they suddenly make one when I start posting about conspiracies?

"You know when you're telling the truth, you make every group angry" - William Cooper

You can say that again. It is a good indicator that you're onto something.

So if I give an answer as to how something can be done (compartmentalization) and you're ignoring it, doesn't this highlight how we are all able to get conned in this way in the first place? You're literally ignoring my answers, while not answering me.

All I have got for answers from you guys (and anywhere else) is opinions and no numbers, which is the answer - just numbers. There's a straight answer to how fast you're moving at 12AM and there's a straight answer to how fast you're moving at 12PM but no one is answering it, they would rather write paragraphs on 'the behaviour of conspiracy theorists' which has got nothing to do with the question.


"Your problem is you don't really understand the physics and I suspect that's why you can't get an answer you like."

I don't care what the answer is, physics and mechanics dictate the answer.

I know the answer - but no one else is answering it. I also know why no one else is answering it, they wouldn't dare to. The only answers ever given to this are bunk answers themselves.


"Forget orbiting the sun, imagine the world is just spinning and not moving."

I never said this in the entire thread. How can something be "spinning and not moving". Stop making out I am saying things I never said. I knew I never said that as soon as I read it because it is nonsense - nonsense you're coming up with.


"So according to you I'm doing plus 1000mph on one side and minus 1000mph on the other."

While the spinning ball you're attached to at the equator is orbiting at 67,000 MPH at the core of it... yes.


"If that were true just by standing here I'd be changing velocity by 2000mph each rotation."

If what were true? The BS you just made up I never said?

I am not discussing something with you when you're not even being honest about what I have said.


"Well that's obviously bunkem. Imagine a match glued to a beach ball that's rotating, it never accelerates it's always moving at a constant speed."

Right but that isn't orbiting is it.


"So in my frame of reference standing here I'm simply always doing 1000mph there is no acceleration and if the earth acquires any any forward velocity we suddenly don't go from having a constant 1000mph to suddenly having plus and minus 1000mph. Nothing changes."

You think nothing changes because you're talking about a ball that is only rotating and not orbiting - something I never once said, you're making it up.


"What you tried to pull..."



You're the one "trying to pull" something by claiming I said "imagine the world is just spinning and not moving" when I never said it, it is nonsense.


"...was based on an observer who wasn't standing on the earth but rather at a point in space."

I don't care about a point in space and have never said I did.


"To that observer the speed is indeed changing but if they were stood on the earth it wouldn't be."

No, its the other way around. The outside observer sees constant speed while the speed changes for the observer touching the surface at the equator. You can't answer it.


"Seriously, learn to understand frames of reference, because you can't mix them and expect anything to make sense."

You can't mix 1,000 MPH with 67,000 MPH without getting a variable speed due to the shape of the object, a ball.


"Pretty much everything you posted above is based on mixed frames of reference and hence why it's all bunkem."

That is again just your opinion and you've not given me the numbers.