WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

Quote

Nobody has any problem with you questioning the official story, it's your abandonment of your own standards when it comes to your theory. 

You have no clue about my theory, so how are you going to understand what I'm doing with it?

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

Quote

You aren't grasping large objects. Water droplets will sit proud from a surface, but go see if a bathtub of water will sit proud outside of the container, or a bucket, or a thimble sized hotel glass. It won't, yet we understand that viscosity of water permits it to act differently given the amount of water observed. 

Water droplets sit proud of a surface because they are not dense enough to overcome the atmospheric pressure squeezing them. It's that simple.

It's the same reason why a glass of water can be turned upside down with a beer mat placed over it, even full of pin holes and no water falls.

It's because of atmospheric pressure pushing up against the tiny amount of it left inside the glass which cannot equalise that push in terms of pushing back, because the bottom of the glass that is now upright, stops the atmosphere from pushing that water.

 

It's much more simple than people think but they opt for gravity that is unexplainable as to what it is but will be explained as to what it supposedly does and yet the very thing we all know but cast aside (atmospheric pressure) is done so with a fictional force acceptance by mass peer pressure and earlier life indoctrination.

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

Obviously because conduction and convection are more efficient methods of transferring internal energy within earth's atmosphere. We don't "need" fans, they're just better for the circumstances. Just like you don't "need" trains to get from A to B, they're just more efficient.

 

Have a look at your lap top and tell me what would happen if there wasn't a fan working if it was in use 24 hours a day?

They have grilles for a reason, to dissipate the heat from the heat-sink and components.

Wrap that lap top inside a plastic bag and place it inside a close fitting bag, then watch it overheat and give up.

 

And they try to dupe us into believing a so called satellite can simply vent it's continuous heat as well as continuous battery charging for decades on end without a blip.

 

[Park Life 71]

Fish please stop.

[Renton 21978]

49 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I'm not the one who said you were mentally ill. That was Renton (I think). I've not said anything to you aside from trying to understand why you think the way you do. I don't think you're mentally ill.

 

Well, if he isn't completely delusional, he's a wum, which makes him a cunt considering some of the stuff he comes out with. I never said he was mentally ill BTW, just posited as an explanation.

 

I think you're wrong about him thinking he's superior. Last time he was here it became apparent he couldn't grasp simple mathematical equations or basic algebra. Rather than admit his shortcomings, he declared it a hoax. He's badly failed in the educational system and is bitter about it. 

[Alex 35567]

[Rayvin 5294]

Just now, Renton said:

 

Well, if he isn't completely delusional, he's a wum, which makes him a cunt considering some of the stuff he comes out with. I never said he was mentally ill BTW, just posited as an explanation.

 

I think you're wrong about him thinking he's superior. Last time he was here it became apparent he couldn't grasp simple mathematical equations or basic algebra. Rather than admit his shortcomings, he declared it a hoax. He's badly failed in the educational system and is bitter about it. 

 

I think that's the same as what I was saying mind. Not quite as on the nose, but it's something that is perhaps just an extreme version of what many other people do.

 

See also Brexit.

[The Fish 10962]

12 minutes ago, Park Life said:

Fish please stop.

 

Football season is over innit.

 

 

 

You just don't like it because he's making you, as our resident "free thinker" look silly by association.

[Renton 21978]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think that's the same as what I was saying mind. Not quite as on the nose, but it's something that is perhaps just an extreme version of what many other people do.

 

See also Brexit.

All of us who have been to university will be aware of the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated in the last couple hundred years. If you go to a university library you will be aware of the huge physical presence of the journals alone, and that's not counting the online stuff which is several magnitudes bigger. Millions of peer reviewed articles and research.

 

All bollocks according to Wolfy. 

 

I mean how vast would this knowledge conspiracy have to be? And all uncovered by that pesky Wolfy and his free thinking. Damn. 

[wolfy 12]

It's amazing how we can go to a library and accept that all books on the fiction shelf are exactly that. And all books on the non-fiction shelf are factual.

What's the difference between a good fictional author and a good non-fictional author?

 

How do we tell if what they put out is what they portray it to be?

[wolfy 12]

The professor at the university standing in front of the class talks about gravity.

"How can we know it's gravity?" He says.

All the students look at each other a bit bemused.

The professor then drops his pen.

"THis is how we know."

 

And basically this is what we are dealt. It is what it is because they tell you it is.

[Rayvin 5294]

3 minutes ago, wolfy said:

It's amazing how we can go to a library and accept that all books on the fiction shelf are exactly that. And all books on the non-fiction shelf are factual.

What's the difference between a good fictional author and a good non-fictional author?

 

How do we tell if what they put out is what they portray it to be?

 

They use peer review. I often send manuscripts to random academics across the world to have them judge it.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Rayvin

[strawb 4378]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

The professor at the university standing in front of the class talks about gravity.

"How can we know it's gravity?" He says.

All the students look at each other a bit bemused.

The professor then drops his pen.

"THis is how we know."

 

And basically this is what we are dealt. It is what it is because they tell you it is.

I think this post made me stupider

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

They use peer review. As often send manuscripts to random academics across the world to have them judge it.

Yep, the peer review crew. Who are these people and what gives them the expertise to verify whether something is correct or not?

It's a jury service of supposed factual science and a best fit according to how the situation pans out.

 

 

[Rayvin 5294]

Just now, wolfy said:

Yep, the peer review crew. Who are these people and what gives them the expertise to verify whether something is correct or not?

It's a jury service of supposed factual science and a best fit according to how the situation pans out.

 

 

 

But I assign reviewers to manuscripts myself, based on the expertise in particular academic areas - I literally make these decisions myself. So unless I'm in on the conspiracy too, we're back to everyone just going along with each other because they're too stupid to actually work anything out.

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

But I assign reviewers to manuscripts myself, based on the expertise in particular academic areas - I literally make these decisions myself. So unless I'm in on the conspiracy too, we're back to everyone just going along with each other because they're too stupid to actually work anything out.

Are you dealing with anything that you cannot directly prove?

Are you in acceptance of something that may have a massive question mark over, or are you sure of the facts?

[Rayvin 5294]

Just now, wolfy said:

Are you dealing with anything that you cannot directly prove?

Are you in acceptance of something that may have a massive question mark over, or are you sure of the facts?

 

I don't actually make academic judgements, I just assign the manuscripts to other people and then harass them until they return the stuff

 

So I don't know what they look at, but I do know that the process isn't an active conspiracy by academics. It can't be if a layman like me is involved in deciding who reviews what.

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I don't actually make academic judgements, I just assign the manuscripts to other people and then harass them until they return the stuff

 

So I don't know what they look at, but I do know that the process isn't an active conspiracy by academics. It can't be if a layman like me is involved in deciding who reviews what.

So you don't know what they look at but assume it's all correct?

Are we dealing with the stuff I'm talking about or something that can be directly proved?

 

[Rayvin 5294]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

So you don't know what they look at but assume it's all correct?

Are we dealing with the stuff I'm talking about or something that can be directly proved?

 

 

We publish across all areas so it will cover stuff in yours along with  plenty unrelated to this.

 

I assume the material is well researched and makes solid conclusions based on evidence provided, if the 4 independent reviewers (who are otherwise entirely unconnected to the project, and each other) inform me of this. 

[Renton 21978]

End result is usually technology which works, which proves the scientific method also works.

 

You'd have to be a monumentally thick cunt not to understand this.

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

We publish across all areas so it will cover stuff in yours along with  plenty unrelated to this.

 

I assume the material is well researched and makes solid conclusions based on evidence provided, if the 4 independent reviewers (who are otherwise entirely unconnected to the project, and each other) inform me of this. 

So you just assume everything is above board, right?

[Rayvin 5294]

Just now, wolfy said:

So you just assume everything is above board, right?

Are you suggesting that the 4 reviewers collude with the author, whose name they don't know at the time of reviewing? They also don't know who each other are, and moreover know nothing about the project until I ask them.

 

How could it be a conspiracy? You'd have to have literally every academic in the world connected to this. There are thousands of them per discipline these days, 10s of thousands in some.

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

End result is usually technology which works, which proves the scientific method also works.

 

You'd have to be a monumentally thick cunt not to understand this.

True, but then again I am questioning the stuff that cannot be proven.

We get told that gravity works fine and dandy and that warped space time keeps the Earth and everything working like a dream.

We get told all kinds of stuff that is pushed out as a fact but looks extremely iffy when looked into.

 

So what technology are we talking about that you know for sure works in how you're told, by direct physical proof...of which I go against or question?

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

Are you suggesting that the 4 reviewers collude with the author, whose name they don't know at the time of reviewing? They also don't know who each other are, and moreover know nothing about the project until I ask them.

 

How could it be a conspiracy? You'd have to have literally every academic in the world connected to this. There are thousands of them per discipline these days, 10s of thousands in some.

I don't know what they're reviewing.

Are they reviewing Space science or a globe or what?

Or are they reviewing a book for a story that they can accept for publication?

[Renton 21978]

39 minutes ago, wolfy said:

True, but then again I am questioning the stuff that cannot be proven.

We get told that gravity works fine and dandy and that warped space time keeps the Earth and everything working like a dream.

We get told all kinds of stuff that is pushed out as a fact but looks extremely iffy when looked into.

 

So what technology are we talking about that you know for sure works in how you're told, by direct physical proof...of which I go against or question?

 

You literally say you don't believe in any field of science or even mathematics ffs!

 

Or any news event.

 

Every time you are presented with evidence, be it mathematical proofs or HD video, or even the evidence of your own eyes, you dismiss it out of hand, often with a pathetic joke.

 

So no. My conclusion is you are either mad, or a complete cunt. I'm edging to the latter at the moment but tbf you might just be as stupid and delusional as you present. Impossible to say for certain. 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3957]

7 hours ago, wolfy said:

I go with my own theory because it's a better fit than the nonsense of a globe model and all the trimmings put together with it.

My evidence is not recognised by people who do not see anything wrong with the model handed to them on a plate. I understand that.

 

Water is flat and level. It is testable and repeatable.

Where is your factual evidence for a globe?

By my own logic I can follow what has a potential better fit than anything else I look over.

Whether it is all correct or only half right, or even 0.1% right, is neither here nor there. It's about people questioning their own indoctrination about their own Earth model they were given.

Mine is secondary to that and is my own thought process that people can try and understand as a mere musing or dismiss out of hand.

 

I do my stuff for me where this is concerned but equally I have no issue sharing my thoughts to people who are interested.

Anyway, like I say, the issue is the nonsense globe model as far as I'm concerned. As far as people are concerned, it's entirely up to them if they have a mind to spend on investigating it all.

 

[adios 717]

5 hours ago, wolfy said:

peer review crew

 

How on Earth is this still going?