11 ms·

My question to all similar conspiracies, sure I can assume US could be evil and corrupt, but then you have their enemies like China and Russia , you have other

My question to all similar conspiracies, sure I can assume US could be evil and corrupt, but then you have their enemies like China and Russia , you have other more neutral countries like EU or India , why are all of this scientists in this conspiracy? And how is it possible that the conspiracy groups can't gather some money to raise a balloon and prove the earth is flat or buy access to an Earth based telescope and prove their ideas using evidence?

NHQ 4y ago
It's not about conspiracy. Christianity isn't a conspiracy. It's about belief, dogma, and for folks of a certain nature, REAL SCIENCE. NASA is just a church pushing doctrine. I'm challenging their dogma. If it had been the Vatican or Putin, my argument would be the same.
- simion314 4y ago
  If you know some math, then what primary terms or axioms are you chalanging? Or you even challange logic? Also maybe you are the only one alive and we all the rest are your dream? We can\t prove to you it is not true so if you are dogmatic about things then we are wasting our time trying to use reason here.
  - NHQ 4y ago
    You have to read this whole thread now. Infinity is the main problem, Math wise. The standard model is not only incomplete science, it is totally mucked math. Infinity isn't real, but is being used as such in the model, so that's regress/tautology. I already told another marxist i'm not arguing for not-knowing, I'm arguing against believing dogma, I'm invalidating your science first, then we can get to mine. You are arguing for your beliefs in the face of invalidation, so you come up with arguments claiming i don't think we can know anything. I didn't say that.
    - simion314 4y ago
      So, why not do something actually constructive/ Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?
      - NHQ 4y ago
        Destroying modern cosmology is constructive! They can't lose their cosmology, because hundreds of years will come due if that happens. Because theirs spins whole fake world, but it really provides no meaning, only fantasies (aliens, black holes, worm holes, weird mathematical phenomena played out in the model). The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth. I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together. You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars. Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...
        simion314 4y ago
        So you have shit, you read a blog about some mathematical paradoxes about infinity and now think you somehow are smarter then everyone else. Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively. I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.

NHQ 4y ago

It's not about conspiracy. Christianity isn't a conspiracy. It's about belief, dogma, and for folks of a certain nature, REAL SCIENCE. NASA is just a church pushing doctrine. I'm challenging their dogma. If it had been the Vatican or Putin, my argument would be the same.

simion314 4y ago
If you know some math, then what primary terms or axioms are you chalanging? Or you even challange logic? Also maybe you are the only one alive and we all the rest are your dream? We can\t prove to you it is not true so if you are dogmatic about things then we are wasting our time trying to use reason here.
- NHQ 4y ago
  You have to read this whole thread now. Infinity is the main problem, Math wise. The standard model is not only incomplete science, it is totally mucked math. Infinity isn't real, but is being used as such in the model, so that's regress/tautology. I already told another marxist i'm not arguing for not-knowing, I'm arguing against believing dogma, I'm invalidating your science first, then we can get to mine. You are arguing for your beliefs in the face of invalidation, so you come up with arguments claiming i don't think we can know anything. I didn't say that.
  - simion314 4y ago
    So, why not do something actually constructive/ Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?
    - NHQ 4y ago
      Destroying modern cosmology is constructive! They can't lose their cosmology, because hundreds of years will come due if that happens. Because theirs spins whole fake world, but it really provides no meaning, only fantasies (aliens, black holes, worm holes, weird mathematical phenomena played out in the model). The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth. I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together. You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars. Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...
      - simion314 4y ago
        So you have shit, you read a blog about some mathematical paradoxes about infinity and now think you somehow are smarter then everyone else. Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively. I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.