Banned Ted Talk: Delusion of Science

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Save us your pseudo religion and dogmatic beliefs...you come off as a Catholic from the middle ages condemning everything that does not fit your world view.

Science is always proving old facts as false in light of new experiments and hypothesis...what learning? Looking at the history of science for what it is, we really can't trust it if we accept any fact with this history as proof.

Anyhow...how can you argue we are learning anything if they keep telling us the speed of light is constant when it changes and they change the definitions along with it. The truth is we really have no proof that the physics the universe exists in today will be the same physics in a thousand years.

But to the banning.

Removing it from a channel is no different than removing it from a forum...removal is banning.

So you are illiterate then. What a surprise. As for the rest; talk about the pot calling the kettle black

There is not much to read in the crayon drawn logic...there is only so far a teacher can read into a child's drawings in preschool.

So says the science-denying, 'parapsychology' believing moron. What a bloody joke you are.

[Eodnhoj7]

So you are illiterate then. What a surprise. As for the rest; talk about the pot calling the kettle black

There is not much to read in the crayon drawn logic...there is only so far a teacher can read into a child's drawings in preschool.

So says the science-denying, 'parapsychology' believing moron. What a bloody joke you are.

So the speed of light is constant and they are not redefining it?

Mathematical axioms are also constant and they do not redefine them?

Tell me what is not sophistry and perspective.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is not much to read in the crayon drawn logic...there is only so far a teacher can read into a child's drawings in preschool.

So says the science-denying, 'parapsychology' believing moron. What a bloody joke you are.

So the speed of light is constant and they are not redefining it?

Mathematical axioms are also constant and they do not redefine them?

Tell me what is not sophistry and perspective.

I think you've had too much to drink.

[Eodnhoj7]

So says the science-denying, 'parapsychology' believing moron. What a bloody joke you are.

So the speed of light is constant and they are not redefining it?

Mathematical axioms are also constant and they do not redefine them?

Tell me what is not sophistry and perspective.

I think you've had too much to drink.

Or not enough...but answer the questions.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So the speed of light is constant and they are not redefining it?

Mathematical axioms are also constant and they do not redefine them?

Tell me what is not sophistry and perspective.

I think you've had too much to drink.

Or not enough...but answer the questions.

There's nothing to 'answer'. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about because your 'questions' are nonsensical gobbledygook.
You seem to think there is some single 'entity' called 'science' that is conspiring to pull the wool over humanity's eyes. In fact there are millions of scientists all over the world doing different things, conducting experiments in their own fields--with the fields being as many and varied as humans themselves. Scientists are the first to admit when they get something wrong--unlike moronic conspiracyturds like yourself.
Weird the way you lot will believe ANYTHING as long as there is NO evidence whatsoever to support it, yet you jump on the tiniest hint of imperfection in the science world, twisting and cherry-picking it to suit your own agenda--all whilst completely ignoring mountains of evidence to support whatever it is you are trying to discredit in your own self-serving and despicable way.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think you've had too much to drink.

Or not enough...but answer the questions.

There's nothing to 'answer'. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about because your 'questions' are nonsensical gobbledygook.

Says the drunk.

Has the speed of light be proven to change yes or no?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Or not enough...but answer the questions.

There's nothing to 'answer'. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about because your 'questions' are nonsensical gobbledygook.

Says the drunk.

Has the speed of light be proven to change yes or no?

You seem to think you have proof of 'something'. Why don't you enlighten us? You haven't mentioned whether you are talking about light in a vacuum. And I'm pretty sure you are referring to some very old 'news'.

[Eodnhoj7]

There's nothing to 'answer'. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about because your 'questions' are nonsensical gobbledygook.

Says the drunk.

Has the speed of light be proven to change yes or no?

You seem to think you have proof of 'something'. Why don't you enlighten us? You haven't mentioned whether you are talking about light in a vacuum. And I'm pretty sure you are referring to some very old 'news'.

No, this was about as year ago...I made the argument you could never correctly measire lightnwaves in a vaccuum without using some other light wave to do it, thus you are always measuring differently each time and no experiment is the same...check in science section somewhere for "speed of light" or something...it is an old thread.

Regardless, the proof is that they claim light is constant they found it isn't then change the definition...it is a loop. Proof is just connecting phenomenon until the form self referencing loops...that is it. Proof is fundamentally empty...just like science.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Says the drunk.

Has the speed of light be proven to change yes or no?

You seem to think you have proof of 'something'. Why don't you enlighten us? You haven't mentioned whether you are talking about light in a vacuum. And I'm pretty sure you are referring to some very old 'news'.

No, this was about as year ago...I made the argument you could never correctly measire lightnwaves in a vaccuum without using some other light wave to do it, thus you are always measuring differently each time and no experiment is the same...check in science section somewhere for "speed of light" or something...it is an old thread.

Regardless, the proof is that they claim light is constant they found it isn't then change the definition...it is a loop. Proof is just connecting phenomenon until the form self referencing loops...that is it. Proof is fundamentally empty...just like science.

If it was proven to be 'not constant' then why on earth would they hide that? What point are you making exactly? That there's a big conspiracy by scientists to hoodwink the human race over the speed of light? I'm sure most humans couldn't give a rat's arse how fast light travels, let alone whether or not it's 'constant'.

[Eodnhoj7]

You seem to think you have proof of 'something'. Why don't you enlighten us? You haven't mentioned whether you are talking about light in a vacuum. And I'm pretty sure you are referring to some very old 'news'.

No, this was about as year ago...I made the argument you could never correctly measire lightnwaves in a vaccuum without using some other light wave to do it, thus you are always measuring differently each time and no experiment is the same...check in science section somewhere for "speed of light" or something...it is an old thread.

Regardless, the proof is that they claim light is constant they found it isn't then change the definition...it is a loop. Proof is just connecting phenomenon until the form self referencing loops...that is it. Proof is fundamentally empty...just like science.

If it was proven to be 'not constant' then why on earth would they hide that? What point are you making exactly? That there's a big conspiracy by scientists to hoodwink the human race over the speed of light? I'm sure most humans couldn't give a rat's arse how fast light travels, let alone whether or not it's 'constant'.

Because it shows all facts are redefined given the course of time, thus all facts as having a truth value "now" will have a false value in the future.