pop morality

[Drich]

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

You see what you've done there is not actually understand what Stephen Hawking said. He said that things could escape from the "black hole" over time not that the thing itself did not exist. What he means is the idea that things cannot escape the event horizon is not true but the THING ITSELF IS THERE. all the science supports it so. So black hole real but not as black as thought.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawki...es-1.14583

I swear it feels like I'm trying to talk to a room full of monkeys sometimes... Or trying to play connect the dots with people who don't know how to count, don't know what dots are, and dont have anything to connect them with.

When I challenged your understanding, your sci fi understanding of a black hole/Gravity Well, I am challenging the model that is based off of Einstein's theory of relativity. In that a black hole is a depression in time and space that even light can not escape. a Gravity well. Hawkings theory says it is not a gravity well.

Now if black holes exist as Einstein's theory supports then Hawking is wrong. If Hawking's theory is correct then Einstein theory is wrong... That is what we grown folk call a contradiction, or a conflicting theory. both can not be right. which means the existence of a black hole down to it's very nature of how it works is truly unknown.
It's all just theory to explain why we have x-ray and gamma ray spikes when we scan the night sky.

Did you know we can not even directly observe a black hole in space. All the pictures you see all the CG is just what we think is going on. That's because we have no gravity sensing telescopes., and we don't have any telescopes powerful enough that see deep enough into space to capture the visible light of a black hole nor the x-ray or gamma rays a black holes is supposed to emmit.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...ack-holes/
all we have to detect black holes is Accretion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_...physics%29
If a black hole were the hole in a whirl pool of water, Accretion would be the spiral of water circling towards the center. But the problem we have we never actually witness anything actually spiral into the center confirming the gravity well theory, because of the Time/Space clause of Einstein's theory would mean it would also appear to us the whirlpool was frozen in time. so we get static pics as in the wiki page. when in fact the whole process is just slowed in time. It would take 100's of thousands of years to witness something get sucked down into the whirlpool. So then all we can really measure is the X-rays and Gamma ray bursts from the material (stars, stellar objects) that supposedly makes up the Accretion.

That's why according to the old standard model nothing could ever escape a black hole. while Hawking says the opposite, that given enough time an object could. which blows EVERYTHING You were not even smart enough to know about black holes out of the water.

Now if you didn't get frustrated and just skip over everything I just said, and you actually read and understood all of it, you would see what a very very thin line the whole black hole nonsense balances on. If I took all the excuses on why we can not observe a working black hole, and apply that to God, you clowns would loose your mind having a field day poking holes in our faith.

That sport, is what I am doing to you.

I'm not doubting that black holes exist, I am not calling into question either Einstein nor Hawking's theories, I am simply pointing out all of that faith you and your buddies have in a system that habitually can not provide 'proof' on a cornerstone event like a black hole or the Higgs/Boson.

You said Science isn't used to support fantasy.. Yes the propaganda around it says that very thing, but in practice it DOES THAT VERY THING! (Science FICTION Is still fantasy) And further more it takes MORE faith to believe in some of the crap science comes up with than it does to believe in God.

What you are showing here is your ignorance on particle physics. I too am ignorant on particle physics so I tend to trust particle physicists to tell me things related to that field because they've put in the years of study and have the big machines. If they say they've found the higgs I am forced to accept that because I am unqualified to argue the point and so Drich are you.

Google sport, google it like I did. I'm not smart. I just verify absolutly Everything then form my conclusions of data that i can support several different ways.
Yes I can't personally contradict the Cern findings, but the Denmark team of Particle Physicists I quoted/linked to can and did.

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

No that's how religion works, it tries to confirm what it looks for science tries to disprove things. What else could have done this thing?

AND that is how Science works like it or not. The two examples I provided underscore this fact.

You seem to not understand simple facts and have misinterpreted some simple facts because you wrongly thought they supported your point. nothing you have pointed to has made me thing any more highly of your abilities, exactly the opposite.

What I've done is taken the 'facts' out of the package they/science wants to sell it to us in, and examine the actual content, then compare the process of acceptance and belief to any other known systems of acceptance and belief. i found one, in religion. the parallels between the two are staggering, especially when 'science' insists so much that it is based on the complete opposite.

Understand I am fully aware I am not viewing the facts through the lenses and assurances science would have us view them. I have taken the narrative and the pedigree/prestige away and just looked at content/raw data, and ran it through the same prossess you run "God/religion though" Guess what... It fails. I have found a greater need for faith in science than what is needed for God.

Why is this important? Because again back to the morality thing. 'Science' is being used to manipulate morality in the general population (those with and with out God) The easiest example to demonstrate this is abortion. Bottom line that any honest person will accept is we are killing babies. Yet, 'science' is used to justify these deaths and remove the unborn baby's humanity reducing him down to 'a clump of cells.'

Now because of the faith you have in science, you are far less likly to question anything this new god will command you do. Science is becoming the same force, or has the same level of control over people that the dark ages church was over Europe. With the church splintered into 30K pieces no one could ever control people through religion like they once did (almost as if God wanted it that way), Yet here we go forgetting the past and shifting all of our faith into the religion science which can be controlled and manipulated by money, to determine our rights and wrongs.