[guest39538]

That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.

I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.

[The Spoon]

That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.

I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.

You didn't even bother trying to establish whether the picture was faked or not. I am not sure if you actually care or not though. For you it is all about getting attention isn't it? If just one person was credulous enough to think it was real, you would have been able to crow about how people agree with you. Hence your tenuous relationship with the truth. 

[guest39538]

That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.

I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.

You didn't even bother trying to establish whether the picture was faked or not. I am not sure if you actually care or not though. For you it is all about getting attention isn't it? If just one person was credulous enough to think it was real, you would have been able to crow about how people agree with you. Hence your tenuous relationship with the truth. 

Oh how we have professor psychologist here who uses a reverse technic to draw attention to his character.  Trying to play the ''good cop''.
In my story I am in the hero of my story and you would be the villain who is out to get me.   In your story , you are the hero of your story and I am the villain.
Of course I was lazy on this one with my research, of course I posted some fake pictures that at first I thought were genuine.  I already admitted I was wrong on this one earlier in the thread. I removed any ammunition you had at that point so why do you continue trying to ''attack'' me?
You know you can't win right?
You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?
You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?

For the absence of replies and questioning is validation of the truth.

[Kryptid]

You know you can't win right?

I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.

You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?

Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?

You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?

Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?

[guest39538]

You know you can't win right?

I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.

You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?

Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?

You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?

Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

[The Spoon]

You know you can't win right?

I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.

You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?

Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?

You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?

Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

Nope. We ask for evidence which you invariably fail to supply. We call you out about not be able to supply evidence. You then go on about stuff you have made up about about being axioms which they patently are not. You then accuse people of being trolls. You get called out on this too. You then post some delusional stuff about how you will 'win' or how you are an 'expert' or some such. Sometimes you just start another thread. From time to time you say you a 'leaving science' and flounce. When nobody misses you, you then come back claiming you just had to let people know about it because it is so important. Invariably it is not.

[Kryptid]

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?

[guest39538]

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?

The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.

It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.

[The Spoon]

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?

The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.

It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.

Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.

[guest39538]

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?

The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.

It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.

Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.

That would be contradictory to my already made admittance of the mistake in this thread. My mistake is replying to you and letting you troll me. However I have nothing else better to do and the Beta blocker prevent me from getting irate.  The failure will be all yours.
And like I said, science so far as not accepted their mistakes. They are wrong on several things but will never admit it.

[The Spoon]

Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.

So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?

The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.

It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.

Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.

That would be contradictory to my already made admittance of the mistake in this thread. My mistake is replying to you and letting you troll me. However I have nothing else better to do and the Beta blocker prevent me from getting irate.  The failure will be all yours.
And like I said, science so far as not accepted their mistakes. They are wrong on several things but will never admit it.

No - sciences has progressed by admitting mistakes and learning from it. Just because nobody agrees with your misreading of science does not make science wrong. It is because you do not have even a basic grounding in the subject.

[guest39538]

No - sciences has progressed by admitting mistakes and learning from it. Just because nobody agrees with your misreading of science does not make science wrong. It is because you do not have even a basic grounding in the subject.

No, I have shown science to be incorrect about several things, I do not make the facts up, the facts exist. I know what I am talking about but unfortunately you can only remember what you were taught and have no idea how to put this knowledge into good use. I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do .   Therefore I am far more clever than you.

[Kryptid]

I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do .   Therefore I am far more clever than you.

And you know this, how?

[guest39538]

I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do .   Therefore I am far more clever than you.

And you know this, how?

I know this by the type of conversation Mr Spoon offers.

[atbsphotography]

No, I have shown science to be incorrect about several things

And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this one
.
Thankfully I can say I learn by my mistakes, science isn't definite and if someone is wrong they do what is right to see it changed. You can do nothing more than learn and if you make mistakes learn from that mistake. I should think the science greats like Copernicus, Hawkins, Einstein ETC made mistakes and learned from them. And I'm sorry to say but they have a lot more intellect and intelligence than most of us do.

[guest39538]

And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this one

Where to start?  Time dilation maybe  or perhaps space expanding.

There is lots of errors and I have some answers to things that have no answers.

[atbsphotography]

And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this one

Where to start?  Time dilation maybe  or perhaps space expanding.

From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.

As for the expansion of the universe, there are a few theories to what it actually is, and whether they are right or not depends on the research to prove the theory right. If the research contradicts the theory it would be regarded as wrong, Take black holes, for instance, most of what we know about them came from Steven Hawkins and as such until proven otherwise his theories are right. Yet I've not seen anywhere someone who contradicts that.

[guest39538]

From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.

I will first explain time dilation in realism terms.   A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.

[atbsphotography]

From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.

I will first explain time dilation in realism << (Realistic) terms.   A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.

Isn't it the other way round, if I was to simultaneously stand stationary and be in constant acceleration at 100 mph I'm sure I would count time slower standing still than I would at a 100mph. The logic for this is the faster you are going the faster you experience time and the slower you are, in this case, stationery, you would time slower. Even though no matter what speed you are accelerating or if you are stationary, time would still be constant and would remain unchanged.

[guest39538]

From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.

I will first explain time dilation in realism << (Realistic) terms.   A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.

Isn't it the other way round, if I was to simultaneously stand stationary and be in constant acceleration at 100 mph I'm sure I would count time slower standing still than I would at a 100mph. The logic for this is the faster you are going the faster you experience time and the slower you are, in this case, stationery, you would time slower. Even though no matter what speed you are accelerating or if you are stationary, time would still be constant and would remain unchanged.

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor.

The clock in motion counts slower than the  clock at rest.  So the faster you go the slower the count of the clock, but time passes constant and equally proportional for all things. Because time is a quantifiable past measurement directly proportional to the amount of history.